On 6 September 2012 15:06, Charlie Clark
<charlie.cl...@clark-consulting.eu> wrote:
> Hiya Laurence,
> Am 06.09.2012, 14:46 Uhr, schrieb Laurence Rowe <l...@lrowe.co.uk>:
>> I think the downsides from leaving it out are:
>> * Another branch of five.localsitemanager to maintain.
>> * Incompatibility between CMF 2.3 and Zope 4 once the parent pointer
>> changes go in.
> What's the timescale for that? I don't see a problem with 2.3 being tied to
> 2.13 and 2.4 being for > 2.13 which I assume Zope 4 is?
> 2.3 has a slew of changes throughout.

We're hoping for a Zope4 alpha by the end of the year. I'm currently
running CMF 2.2 / Plone 4.3 on my branch with only a couple of minor
changes. Its really only the RequestContainer aq rewrapping which
causes a problem. With my branch that becomes isolated in
five.localsitemanager, which will require a new release for Zope4

>> Plone is unlikely to make a CMF upgrade until it removes its
>> CMFDefault dependency.
> Please elaborate.

The refactoring of CMFDefault broke the Plone tool subclasses. Its no
bad thing really, inheriting from CMFDefault doesn't make a lot of
sense for Plone, we just need to do the work of moving code around. In
any case we need to wait for a Plone 5 before we can upgrade, if CMF
2.4 came in fairly quick succession we could probably just skip 2.3.

>> Laurence
>> The main downside to leaving the changes out is the necessity of
>> another five.localsitemanager branch to maintain. The changes are
>> compatible with CMF 2.2, but it may not play nicely with the
> Did you hit enter too early?

Just a draft I forgot to delete.
Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@zope.org

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to