Martin Aspeli wrote:
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.

It would be useful to specify the order in 'add' menus by ordering the type infos.

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.

That code uses a hard-coded factory and the first part of the file name is used as 'id'. Right?

The types tool can contain many different objects: Several kinds of TypeInfos and scripts for ScriptableTypeInfos. You can't hard-code the factory, you have to parse the file to find out which factory is required.

But you can't be sure the file is an XML file of a specific format. The import/export adapter for scripts has a different format. I haven't seen an alternative adapter for TypeInfos, but right now you can plug in a different format (like CSV for workflows) by using a different import/export adapter.

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.

I'm not happy with the current file format. But representing containers is a general problem and I want *one* generic solution that works for all use cases.

We have .objects files for content and .xml files for configuration. You propose a different pattern, and I doubt it could replace the other two patterns.



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

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

Reply via email to