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 direction. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. _______________________________________________ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests