On 5 July 2011 20:21, Leonardo Rochael Almeida <leoroch...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Hanno, > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:18, Hanno Schlichting <ha...@hannosch.eu> wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Martin Aspeli <optilude+li...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> I would've thought it would also be possible for those who rely on this to >>> maintain the relevant eggs as optional installations against Zope 2.x, no? >> >> The ZMI is not a package - we don't have a split into zope and >> zope.app in Zope2. Once there's no more ZMI, Products.PageTemplates >> stops using RestrictedPython and the OFS base classes don't inherit >> from Acquisition.Implicit anymore, it'll be really hard to keep the >> legacy development approach working. > > I guess this is the biggest point of contention. Why does the ZMI have > to go? Although both Plone and ERP5 strive to gradually replace ZMI > based configuration with "native" interfaces (native to Plone/ERP5), > isn't there value in having a minimal OFS browser with the ability to > Add/Delete/Copy/Cut/Paste objects as a fallback? It doesn't seem to > conflict with your stated goal: > > "I think what's going to stay is AccessControl, OFS (a bit lighter), > ZPublisher (WSGI), the ZODB, ZCatalog and all the wiring for a set of > Zope Toolkit libraries like components, events, browser pages and so > on. > > That's the kind of scope that should be possible to port to Python 3 > and actually modernize enough to be understandable.(...)" > > Or to put it differently, in which way does having a minimalistic OFS > browser for a ZMI conflicts or hinders Plone's objectives for the > Zope2 code base? > > If we still have that minimalistic ZMI, all players in our community > can decide how much effort they want to spend maintaining which legacy > pieces technology, depending on what makes economic sense to them, > without causing extra maintenance burden on the other players.
I think the problem with the current ZMI is that it brings in a whole load of dependencies that we don't otherwise need - if it were minimalistic it wouldn't be a problem. I'm all for someone writing a very simple object browser though, it would make a great optional package. I'm certainly interested in moving away from OFS in the medium term towards the much simpler ZTK / Pyramid approach of __getitem__ traversal. Laurence _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )