Rocky Burt wrote:
>   1) Ease of development - AT helps cut down on boilerplate code
>      as compared to building a regular CMF type (without AT)
> 
>   2) Schema - The ability to declare which fields a content type has
>      and what "types" those fields are
> 
>   3) Widgets - The ability to declare general purpose distributable
>      widgets that get displayed by default for either viewing a field
>      directly or viewed the editable version of a field
> 
>   4) References - Being able to have a common framework that allows us
>      to relate one AT-based content type instance to another

I forgot a very important fifth component:
  5) Storage layers - AT provides a standard way of having the storage
of fields exist somewhere other than directly on the content type itself
such as in a sql database.

My opinion on #5 is:
  I think sqlos has a good approach to accomplishing another storage
layer on standard z3 content types.  At a minimum the AT storage layer
mechanism should be broken out... possibly using the same sort of
strategy as sqlos (although I think I'd still like to see something a
little more transparent that does all field<->implementation mappings
externally in zcml or something similiar)


- Rocky

-- 
Rocky Burt
ServerZen Software -- http://www.serverzen.com
ServerZen Hosting -- http://www.serverzenhosting.net
News About The Server -- http://www.serverzen.net

_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to