Hi Florent!

Florent Guillaume wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 2 Apr 2006, at 09:34, Rob Miller wrote:
it's in now, r66291.
and i've also committed the .delete file support implementation, again on the 1.6 branch. if there are no complaints, i'll merge to 2.0 and trunk on monday.

Thanks Rob! I hope Lennart and Yvo will take a look this weekend or Monday. My own goal (or the reason for making the corresponding collector issue a release blocker) was to just prevent content deletion as described in the issue. Anything beyond that I am neutral about.

FWIW I don't have an opinion on this, as we don't use the content.py I/O export methods. The XML/NodeAdapterBase is enough for us.

Same here.

But I'm curious as to why there are two import/export frameworks, the config one (NodeAdapterBase) and the content one (FileSystemExporter). Couldn't they be merged? Or at least some adapters reused?

I'd call them sub-frameworks. Both provide setup steps for the main framework. Nevertheless I agree that one sub-framework for both tasks should be enough. They both solve very similar problems with different design decisions and implementations.

The current situation has historical reasons: Tres worked on the content handler and I worked on the configuration handlers. We never managed to discuss our different approaches and to agree on a common sub-framework.

I'm not happy with this, but IMHO there are more important issues to resolve in GenericSetup.



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

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

Reply via email to