Hi Florent!

Florent Guillaume wrote:
I'd like to discuss possible improvements to have profile extensions check some dependencies. This will require a way to express dependencies, which in the general case can be extremely complex -- but we probably don't need that.

Just some general thoughts for now:

1.) In the long run, I'd like to get rid of preconfigured FTIs, tool settings and DCWorkflow definitions. All of them should be replaced by profile fragments. To avoid redundant profile data, bigger profiles like 'CMFDefault:default' should depend on these fragments.

Given the potential complexity of dependencies an XML file in the profile directory might be a better place for these specifications.

2.) The current CMFSetup implementation merges the selected profiles. You can't tell from the result which profiles it contains. Even if we keep record of the used profiles - the specific combination and further customizations may break working dependencies. So adding extensions later based on dependencies would not work.

This means we either have to reload all dependencies if we add extensions later or to limit the use cases to new site scenarios.

It might be useful to have a 'show all' option in the UI for adding new sites that allows to combine arbitrary profiles. The specified dependencies can just be a set of recommendations, advanced users need a way to experiment with other combinations.

3.) I propose to use version numbers for profiles. And to use these numbers or a range of numbers to specify dependencies.



Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to