Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
> > it's not that big architectual change. everything else discussed is
> > possible anyway. i would rather call it a feature than a design change
> > (since the change happens anyway).
> I think it's a fairly big shift to assume that the FTI has knowledge of "the
> schema" of the type. It's not necessarily a *bad* idea (at least I don't think
> so, since this is basically how Dexterity works :-), but right now,
> FTI doesn't have any notion of a schema. With this change, you're
> effectively dictating (or strongly suggesting) that all CMF types have
> "a schema" and that this is the basis for forms, and suggesting that
> forms aren't registered as independent views but rather inferred from
> this schema.

Possibly related: I have often had a desire to be able to annotate or
extend the FTI. In Plone (and to a lesser degree CMF) we have lots of
settings that change a portal type's behaviour that are stored in
various places: versioning settings, markup configuration, workflow
chains, etc.

I suppose there is no reason not to use annotations on the FTI right
now; perhaps we should investigate migrating some things in that


Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>    It is simple to make things.                   It is hard to make things simple.
Zope-CMF maillist  -

See for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to