[Zope-CMF] Re: RFC: GenericSetup Architecture Proposal
Hi Tres! Tres Seaver wrote: yuppie wrote: At the first glance that makes export_steps.xml and import_steps.xml obsolete. But there is the MetaProfile that has to be shipped with a BaselineProfile and that is maintained in the tool. Why do we still need MetaProfiles? Can't we just walk through a site/profile and export/import each object that has a handler? http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2005-September/022877.html proposes to use im- and export adapters for content objects. Can't we do the same for config objects, registering the SetupHandlers as adapters? And get rid of the special SetupHandler registries completely? I don't think so. What would we be adapting here? The configuration objects (e.g. tools). Of course we would need a way to create new empty objects on import before we can adapt and configure them. I like the fact that the MetaProfile represents the set of policy choices which make up a given installable site configuration: e.g., imagine Nate's Plone4Media as a setup profile. Or imagine a Silva profile, or one which is built around classic Zope with PAS. I want to be able to spell which handlers are in play for a given profile, to permit installing them independently. Sure MetaProfiles have some benefits. It depends on our objectives if they are useful or not. Here some goals that are easier to achieve without MetaProfiles: 1.) make code and profiles more reusable: Primarily setup handlers are serializers/deserializers. There are other places where we could make use of them, e.g.: - fssync based XML im- and export (http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2004-November/024057.html) - dav/ftp - add forms that allow to create pre-configured objects (as they currently exist for type infos and workflows, but without support for profile data) The current profile format looks already very similar to a fssync or dav/ftp checkout, representing each configuration object by an XML file. In the long run I'd like to see all kinds of exports converge to one format. 2.) make code and profiles more simple: MetaProfiles and ExtensionProfiles don't play together very well. Instead of trying to resolve issues like those discussed in http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2005-June/022435.html by making the MetaProfile machinery more complicated, I'd prefer to get rid of it. Profiles also become simpler if there's no need to specify handlers explicitly. BTW Yuppie, will you be in Vienna next week for the Plone conference? I'd enjoy chatting about this and other issues in person, if so. I didn't make it to the Plone conference, but we'll meet at the castle sprint. Looking forward to seeing you. Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: RFC: GenericSetup Architecture Proposal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 yuppie wrote: BTW Yuppie, will you be in Vienna next week for the Plone conference? I'd enjoy chatting about this and other issues in person, if so. I didn't make it to the Plone conference, but we'll meet at the castle sprint. Looking forward to seeing you. OK, great! We can chat further about the profile stuff then. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDMOWP+gerLs4ltQ4RAnM4AJ9us/3NaQnyLOlG1fKlHUigZUqGDgCgz94q 7NXy+oXOqsx24VlnHzXEFRw= =3jD6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: RFC: GenericSetup Architecture Proposal
Tres Seaver wrote: I owe another proposal on filesystem export / import of content, but this one was a prerequisite. Please comment on the list, as the discussion facilities on the site are pretty much useless. http://www.zope.org/Products/CMF/docs/requirements/proposals/GenericSetup_architecture What granularity do you envision for a DeltaProfile ? Individual files ? Or something finer, like just changing part of an XML file (say, change just the title of a portal type) ? If it's the latter, then we'd have to much quite different handlers than today. Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) CTO, Director of RD +33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: RFC: GenericSetup Architecture Proposal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Florent Guillaume wrote: Tres Seaver wrote: I owe another proposal on filesystem export / import of content, but this one was a prerequisite. Please comment on the list, as the discussion facilities on the site are pretty much useless. http://www.zope.org/Products/CMF/docs/requirements/proposals/GenericSetup_architecture What granularity do you envision for a DeltaProfile ? Individual files ? Or something finer, like just changing part of an XML file (say, change just the title of a portal type) ? If it's the latter, then we'd have to much quite different handlers than today. I actually envision a textual diff, to be applied to the files which make up the profile. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDKtG4+gerLs4ltQ4RAkkDAKDNEZ2syTPiF1xlMUAn89T5Gz90vACggyV9 NK7nfQOfOVHDXkbJgoPhi6Y= =EO2/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: RFC: GenericSetup Architecture Proposal
Hi Tres! Tres Seaver wrote: I owe another proposal on filesystem export / import of content, but this one was a prerequisite. Please comment on the list, as the discussion facilities on the site are pretty much useless. http://www.zope.org/Products/CMF/docs/requirements/proposals/GenericSetup_architecture I'm not sure if I understand the proposed way to register SetupHandlers: Obviously you propose a new global registry for available SetupHandlers with new API and ZCML for registering SetupHandlers. At the first glance that makes export_steps.xml and import_steps.xml obsolete. But there is the MetaProfile that has to be shipped with a BaselineProfile and that is maintained in the tool. Why do we still need MetaProfiles? Can't we just walk through a site/profile and export/import each object that has a handler? http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2005-September/022877.html proposes to use im- and export adapters for content objects. Can't we do the same for config objects, registering the SetupHandlers as adapters? And get rid of the special SetupHandler registries completely? Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
