Hi Martin!
Martin Aspeli wrote:
I had a browse through the code at
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/trunk/CMFCore/interfaces. This work is
interesting to me not at least because it will enable us to write
against CMF (and hopefully Plone soon) code using Z3 idioms (e.g.
accessing things through inter
Hi,
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:42:08 -, Tres Seaver
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd like to review the current status of a number of the CMF 2.0 roadmap
items, and ask for feedback from the community on how they fit into a
near-term release of a beta for CMF 2.0. In fact, I would like to
rele
On 1/13/06, David Pratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Lennart. Isn't CPSSkins GPL?
Probably.
> I would prefer a generic approach that
> compatible with the ZPL.
Why?
> Would CPSSkins license be changed under this
> scenario? I am sure there are others like me that do not develop under
> GPL
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 1/12/06, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One is CPSSkins, where you in practice has a dedicated WYSIWYG editor
for changing the layouts and CSS of a site. It can be argued that
CPSSkins is too complex as it is now, and not very user friendly, but
it requires
Hi Tres!
Tres Seaver wrote:
yuppie wrote:
I agree with your concerns. Views and the FiveActionsTool both use
Five/Zope3 technology for the price of dropping TTW/GenericSetup support
and introducing a second way to do the same things.
Hmm, I'm not sure I see how we are trading away GenericS
On 1/12/06, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do I have to make a package, with new content
> type and a pile of ZCML just because I want my Description to be at the
> bottom rather than the top of my Document view?
One zcml statement is not exactly "a pile". :)
> That's a fairly drastic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
yuppie wrote:
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>
>> The only thing that bothers me is the lack of local skin
>> customisations. Does that mean that there is *no* way to e.g. overide
>> document_view.pt or whatever else? Or just no TTW way? In fact, I'm -1
>> o
Hi Martin!
Martin Aspeli wrote:
The only thing that bothers me is the lack of local skin customisations.
Does that mean that there is *no* way to e.g. overide document_view.pt
or whatever else? Or just no TTW way? In fact, I'm -1 on releasing with
either limitation, but I think having no way
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> ... Does that mean that there is *no* way to e.g. overide
> document_view.pt or whatever else? Or just no TTW way?
Basically it means no TTW way. You should be able to override view
component definitions with overrides.zcml.
But regarding the TTW customization, I happen
On 12 Jan 2006, at 22:10, Martin Aspeli wrote:
The only thing that bothers me is the lack of local skin
customisations. Does that mean that there is *no* way to e.g.
overide document_view.pt or whatever else? Or just no TTW way? In
fact, I'm -1 on releasing with either limitation, but I thi
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:42:08 -, Tres Seaver
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
First, many thanks to all who have contributed toe the CMF 2.0 effort!
I'd like to review the current status of a number of the CMF 2.0 roadmap
items, and ask for feedback
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
As far as the Zope target platform for CMF 2.0 goes, I was under the
impression it had already quietly slipped to 2.9, even though there was
never any announcement ;) Plone will probably be on CMF 1.5/1.6 in the
near term rather than 2.0, so IMHO that is an argument in
On 12 Jan 2006, at 12:44, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 1/12/06, yuppie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 for dropping Zope 2.8 support
On that, it can be mentioned that for the fiveactions tool, having
both 2.8 and 2.9 support requires quite some work and code
duplication, so I'm +N on dropping 2.8
On 1/12/06, yuppie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 for dropping Zope 2.8 support
On that, it can be mentioned that for the fiveactions tool, having
both 2.8 and 2.9 support requires quite some work and code
duplication, so I'm +N on dropping 2.8, where N is an arbitrarily
large positive number. :)
Hi Tres!
Tres Seaver wrote:
I'd like to review the current status of a number of the CMF 2.0 roadmap
items, and ask for feedback from the community on how they fit into a
near-term release of a beta for CMF 2.0. In fact, I would like to
release an alpha this weekend, followed by a more-or-less
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:00:18 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This ties into the second question, which Plone core developers can
answer better, about the plans for which version of Plone will go with
which version of CMF.
Plone 2.5 (the next release, due this spring) wil
16 matches
Mail list logo
