[Zope-CMF] Re: CMF 2.0 Release Status

2006-01-15 Thread Martin Aspeli
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

[Zope-CMF] Re: CMF 2.0 Release Status

2006-01-15 Thread yuppie
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

Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: CMF 2.0 Release Status

2006-01-14 Thread Lennart Regebro
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 Yeah, I

[Zope-CMF] Re: CMF 2.0 Release Status

2006-01-13 Thread yuppie
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

[Zope-CMF] Re: CMF 2.0 Release Status

2006-01-13 Thread Tres Seaver
-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 on

Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: CMF 2.0 Release Status

2006-01-13 Thread Lennart Regebro
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

[Zope-CMF] Re: CMF 2.0 Release Status

2006-01-13 Thread yuppie
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

Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: CMF 2.0 Release Status

2006-01-13 Thread David Pratt
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

[Zope-CMF] Re: CMF 2.0 Release Status

2006-01-12 Thread yuppie
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

Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: CMF 2.0 Release Status

2006-01-12 Thread Lennart Regebro
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. :)

Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: CMF 2.0 Release Status

2006-01-12 Thread Jens Vagelpohl
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,

[Zope-CMF] Re: CMF 2.0 Release Status

2006-01-12 Thread Florent Guillaume
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

[Zope-CMF] Re: CMF 2.0 Release Status

2006-01-12 Thread Martin Aspeli
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

Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: CMF 2.0 Release Status

2006-01-12 Thread Jens Vagelpohl
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

[Zope-CMF] Re: CMF 2.0 Release Status

2006-01-12 Thread Rocky Burt
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

[Zope-CMF] Re: CMF 2.0 Release Status

2006-01-11 Thread Alexander Limi
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) will