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 CMF or other non-Plone core products.

Perhaps some specifics would help.

* What wheels do you think Plone has reinvented?

* Are there any particular things in Plone that you think should be pushed
down into CMF?

If you ask me most of the install/setup/migration stuff of Plone is implemented in the wrong layer. The way Plone uses the CMFDefault PortalGenerator and customizes CMFDefault settings looks quite strange.

AFAICS Plone could benefit from CMFSetup and CMFSetup could benefit from the experience Plone people have with install/setup/migration tasks. CMFSetup still needs a lot of work, but it could became a generic framework that replaces (at least big parts of) CMFQuickInstallerTool and the Plone migrations machinery. CPS people already contribute to CMFSetup.

In general I'm skeptic if people want to contribute new products. CMF still needs a lot of consolidation work. And CMF has to be modernized to benefit from Five features.

I guess the first thing we need is a unit test framework that is more similar to Zope 3 and Plone tests. Most people not familiar with CMF unit tests have problems writing new ones. I don't like the idea to depend on an external product, but maybe CMFTestCase could become part of CMF?

Just my 2 cents.



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

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

Reply via email to