Hanno Schlichting wrote:

One example where the current behavior makes sense is when you write an
add-on product which wants to install itself into a standard Plone site
and change the settings of the Archetypes tool. The import handler for
the Archetypes tool is only specified in the extension profile for
Archetypes and not in the Plone base profile. It is however always
installed into a Plone site via an import various step.

Mmm, well that's another problem: Installing one profile during installation of another also does not work reliably (I believe Rob was working on a generic dependency solution for this).

I think this kind of decoupling the different profiles into the packages
they came from is a sensible idea. In order for that to work reliable we
need to have some profile dependency support, though.

Right. You could extend my argument to include "and those extension profiles explicitly marked as dependencies of the current base profile or the extension profile being installed".

When we would have that I would extend your idea in the following way:

The only sane behaviour, IMHO, is this:

 - When importing a base profile, only steps from the base profile are run.

 - When importing an extension profile, only steps from the *current*
base profile and any additional steps explicitly defined in the
*selected* extension profile (via an import_steps.xml file) are run.

In both cases all the steps from any (recursively) defined dependencies
are run as well.


So the Plone Base profile would depend on the Archetypes extension
profile (as well as the other half a dozen we install manually right
now) and you could always assume the Archetypes tool import step to be

For an add-on X it can decide to depend on Y and thus re-use all of
their import steps as well, without having to specify the handler itself.

No steps are ever implicitly pulled in from other extension profiles,
and switching base profiles resets the base set of steps that are run
for any extension profile.

Another solution (better than the current behaviour, less good imho than
the solution above) would be to load all steps from all profiles at Zope
startup, when the profile registry is populated, so that all steps are
always run if a package registering a new step is installed. This still
means having lots of flag/file-checking and could be quite inefficient.

This is really bad. That way if there is some experimental profile
registered somewhere it would get loaded automatically. So as soon as I
have one broken import step somewhere I would have no chance to exclude
it. The registration of an import step should still be an explicit task.

Yeah, good point. :)

What do you think? Is there a sane use case for the current behaviour?

Apart from the decoupled but guaranteed-to-be-there extension profiles I
cannot think of any.

Explicit being better than implicit and all that. :)


Acquisition is a jealous mistress

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

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

Reply via email to