[Zope-CMF] Re: RFC: GenericSetup Architecture Proposal

2005-09-20 Thread yuppie

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

2005-09-20 Thread Tres Seaver
-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

2005-09-16 Thread Florent Guillaume

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

2005-09-16 Thread Tres Seaver
-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

2005-09-16 Thread Florent Guillaume


On 16 Sep 2005, at 16:07, Tres Seaver wrote:

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.


Awww, gross :)

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

2005-09-16 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

yuppie wrote:
 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.

Yup.

 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?  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.

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.


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

iD8DBQFDKu1n+gerLs4ltQ4RAmA1AJ9xSaWgvq2oghnSLtreJX7rODgdlACeOpXS
ofZEWzMpyT+zTOEjusPqbw8=
=1j+p
-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

2005-09-13 Thread yuppie

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