Tres Seaver wrote:
I'll note that my original architecture document contemplated two
kinds of "add-on" profiles:
- ExtensionProfiles could register *new* kinds of steps, as well as
making non-destructive insertions to the configuration created by a
- DeltaProfiles essentially captured line-level diffs to a "baseline"
I think there is room for both, where we get away from the need to make
EPs the "current" profile in order to use them. DeltaProfiles could be
"applied" by patching a snapshot, and then installing the snapshot as a
Because not all the files being patched are XML, I don't think we can or
should rely on XSLT: diff might be enough.
I don't know if we have the resources to implement XSLT diffs and of
course XSLT makes only sense for XML (we can still use diff for other
files). But for XML XSLT has big advantages over normal diffs:
- normal diffs for XML files are often very hard to read and edit
- small changes in the XML file often make it impossible to apply a
So the use cases for these DeltaProfiles are very limited. Using XSLT
would allow us to unify DeltaProfiles and ExtensionProfiles, providing
an automated way for creating ExtensionProfiles.
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests