Florent Guillaume wrote:
Tres Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think the discussion around Archetypes, in particular, ended up
stalled over the question of whether to "code generation" design
should be preferred over "configuration-based" design (as found in
CPSSchemas, for instance).
Also now that Zope 3 is taking more and more importance in CMF, any
schema-based solution should be based on Zope 3 schemas. IMO both
Archetypes and CPSSchemas are too big frameworks to include in CMF.
maybe i'm being naive here, but what's wrong w/ trying to get them all
to play together? i've been doing work on ATSchemaEditor and have been
thinking about ways to bring it forward. the first obvious choice is to
use adapters to designate an object as a schema consumer
(ISchemaConsumer), able to be served up its schema from a schema
provider (ISchemaProvider). even just within the AT world, there is the
problem of schemas that will be partly defined via python code, and
partly defined in blob space via a TTW schema editor. the use of an
ISchemaDefiner interface could possibly be used as a bridge between any
schema definition framework (AT, Z3, CPS, XML, blob-space, etc.) and the
schema providing layer.
of course, some things are bound to get lost in translation, and there
will probably be some strongly held (and differing) opinions on what,
exactly, a ready-to-be-consumed schema should specify, but an
abstraction layer like this in CMF would at least make it easier for the
rest of us to plug in.
-r
_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - [email protected]
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
