Hi!
Geoff Davis wrote:
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:30:20 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
It would help everyone if the CMF side opened up a little
more to ideas coming down from Plone, and if the Plone side stopped
reinventing wheels that would be much better off (and benefit
everyone) in the
Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the discussion around Archetypes, in particular, ended up
stalled over the question of whether to code generation design
should be preferred over configuration-based design (as found in
CPSSchemas, for instance).
Also now that Zope 3 is taking
On 2 Aug 2005, at 13:27, Florent Guillaume wrote:
Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the discussion around Archetypes, in particular, ended up
stalled over the question of whether to code generation design
should be preferred over configuration-based design (as found in
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 2 Aug 2005, at 13:27, Florent Guillaume wrote:
Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the discussion around Archetypes, in particular, ended up
stalled over the question of whether to code generation design
should be preferred over configuration-based design
Geoff Davis wrote at 2005-8-1 12:53 -0400:
...
* Are there any particular things in Plone that you think should be pushed
down into CMF?
PloneBatch seems quite useful.
I do not use Plone (due to its GPL) but I found the FactoryTool
useful. Because it is GPL, I studied its functionality and
then
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
We have contributed quite a few bug fixes to CMF, though that has been
hampered by problems getting CVS access (I sent in my contributor form
over a year ago and have yet to hear anything; as Tres has indicated,
this has
