Hi all, Marcos Romero and Juan Pablo Gimenez have contributed a nice branch to help us get rid of the anachronistic use of AnnotationStorage and ATFieldProperties currently used in the archetype template's atschema local command. I have some questions about the work, and about the issues surrounding this usage, and I'd like to solicit some input from the zopeskel community.
First, Marcos and Juan Pablo have removed the parts of the recipe that put 'title' and 'description' into annotation storage and create automatic field properties for them. I think we can all agree that this is a good move and I'm all on board with it. Are there any objections from the peanut gallery about this? Second, they have discontinued the use of annotation storage by default for all field types except 'file', 'image' and 'text' fields. Here is where I start to have some real questions. 1. Is there a reason that annotation storage is more appropriate for these three field types than for other field types? IOW, is it to be considered solid best practice that these three field types use annotation storage in the general case? 2. Since only these three field types use annotation storage, fields of this type are also the only ones that get ATFieldProperty python property bridges set up, and they are also the only fields that end up in the zope schema for the new content type. If you have a mix of fields including these types as well as others (string, integer, boolean etc), then you end up with a zope schema defined for your content type which differs a great deal from the archetypes schema. Is this a good idea? It seems problematic to me. Any suggestions of a better way to handle the issue? I see two ways right off the bat for handling the second issue. On the one hand, we could simply relegate the concept of ATFieldProperties and the creation of a zope schema for AT-based content types to the dustbin and stop generating either. On the other hand, we could establish a pattern of creating ATFieldProperties with some sort of prefix on their names to avoid collision with attribute-stored AT fields and create zope schema which include _all_ the fields defined in the at schema (probably including title and description). Any other possibilities? Any advice on what the best way to clean this up might be? What is considered to be 'best practice' for this issue? Thanks for your input, c ******************************** Cris Ewing Webmaster, Lead Developer Department of Radiology Web Services University of Washington School of Medicine Work Phone: (206) 616-1288 Cell Phone: (206) 708-9083 E-mail: cew...@u.washington.edu Web: http://www.rad.washington.edu *******************************
_______________________________________________ ZopeSkel mailing list ZopeSkel@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/zopeskel