On 2/11/06, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess the path I'd see would be to make all the code (yeah, tall indeed)
> that uses the methods from these classes work in terms of Z3 interfaces.
Oh, that is gonna break a LOT of products I imagine... So I'm not sure
it's sucha great idea...
> That way, we could write adapters however general or specific that work on
> either all/most Z3 content (i.e. objects that provide a Z3 interface with
> a schema and thus could have auto-generated add and edit forms etc.) or
> that are specific to whatever content type is in question.
Sure, but the problem is that every product that uses one of these
methods will have to be changed...
> > I tried to make a ZCML statement that replaced the FTI, since much of
> > the information already exist as other ZCML statements but failed. We
> > need to change things in portal types for that to work I think.
> I can see how there may be problems. I think ZCML-extensions that work off
> the Z3 <content> directive but extends with whatever CMF may need would be
> a nicer way than the in-ZODB portal_types ...
> *Except* there ought to be some way of override that kind of configuration
> TTW. It is very important for site admins to be able to e.g. change the
> display name of a type or change actions.
Ey, you want the cake *and* eat it too. That's pretty difficult. ;-)
There are override.zcmls available, and much of what is in there makes
little sense to change anyway. The things that should be often changed
should probably end up in some sort of GenericSetup profile.
Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/
CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests