yuppie wrote:

Martin Aspeli wrote:
The GS handlers for portal_types and portal_workflow both require a single file - types.xml and workflows.xml - that declares the objects, and a directory full of files - types/*.xml and workflows/*.xml - to initialise them.

However, in both cases, there is enough information in the per-item files (id, meta_type) to make the types.xml and workflows.xml redundant.

Some tools are ordered containers, the types tool might become ordered as well. GS always specifies the order of sub-objects in the container's file.

To what end?

It's not ordered now, and I can't see a good reason to make it ordered.

Right now we have a relatively easy rule: Adding, moving or removing sub-objects modifies the container, so these changes *always* have to be specified explicitly in the container's file.

'id' and 'meta_type' in the per-item files are not really used. Would it be an improvement to remove that redundant information from the per-item files?

A marginal one (no repetition), but this is still really cumbersome. I have to tell people to remember to add two files, and to match up three things (line in the types.xml, filename in types/*.xml, and line in types/*.xml file itself) just to install something.

FWIW, collective.wtf, which provides an alternate syntax for workflow installation, doesn't require a workflows.xml.

Worse, it's easy to forget, and no warning that there are "orphan" files.

Adding a warning might be an other solution.

That sounds like attacking the symptom rather than the problem, though.

I'm pretty sure it's an easy fix to make types.xml and workflows.xml optional (or even deprecated, though of course workflows.xml also has bind information that should remain there).

All the information required for adding, moving or removing sub-objects is currently stored in the container's file. Additional code and complexity is necessary to extract that information from per-item files.

True, but not very much. See http://dev.plone.org/collective/browser/collective.wtf/trunk/collective/wtf/exportimport.py#L128 for an example.

In general, repetition like this is counter-productive. I've had to explain this to three people new to Plone recently, and it feels like I'm making excuses rather than a strong case.

We could add 10 lines of code and save 100 people from making common mistakes that cause problems of the type "why doesn't my workflow show up?" with no errors or warning messages.

I would probably not deprecate the existing two-file pattern though, just make it optional.


Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who
want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book

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

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

Reply via email to