Jens Vagelpohl wrote:

On 20 Dec 2005, at 21:56, yuppie wrote:
I really don't care much about how this is resolved. But from Rob's checkins and the discussion following this mail


I had the impression that CMF 1.6 should provide backwards compatibility for Products written for Plone 2.1, not for Plone 2.1 itself. CMFDynamicViewFTI is an integral part of Plone 2.2 and I would be surprised if any other Plone product registers its own type info class. AFAICS the same applies to FlexibleTypeInformation and CPS.

I don't think that my backports from the trunk widened that gap between 1.5 and 1.6. It existed from the beginning of the 1.6 branch.

I have a feeling that I am the first one who tried to run Plone 2.1 on CMF 1.6, which is why no one noticed before. I certainly would have spoken up if I had come across it as I have now.

It might be that the problem was hidden before I removed the typeClasses list. But the typeClasses list wasn't really used on the 1.6 branch. Only in manage_addTypeInformation, where the new way to register type info classes was ignored.

After reading the thread you mention, which isn't all that clear when it comes to outlining what the consequences of some of these code changes are, I'm confused. I think I can boil it down to one question: What is the use of the CMF 1.6 branch if it is not compatible to Plone 2.1/2.1.1 and 2.1.2 when it comes out, and possibly not even 2.2 since that's only a few months down the road?

I don't quite understand the distinction between "compatible with products written for Plone 2.1 but not with Plone 2.1", I can't see any sense in that route... it all comes back to one question: What is the goal for the 1.6 branch? What specific audience is it targeted at? I can see what it's apparently *not* targeted at: People who work with Plone 2.1 - including those that might be interested in taking up GenericSetup for their Plone product. I had thought that was our audience.

AFAICT the original target audience were people that want to switch to Plone 2.2 and reuse Products written for 2.1.

That might have changed over time, but the code never reflected that change.

I'm fine with any decision as long as someone else does the necessary work.



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

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

Reply via email to