[Zope-PTK] content states

[Steve Alexander]

"Phillip J. Eby" wrote:
> 
> I would suggest that we make the convention even simpler.  How about just
> having a method called "workflow_states" which returns a list of keywords
> for cataloging, and leave its implementation subject to being overridden by
> the implementor of a class?  Its default implementation can be to look at a
> "state_sheets" attribute containing the names of the sheets which contain
> state flags.  The keywords can then be rendered as something like:
> 
> sheetname.propertyname-value

Right. Interestingly, this scheme allows a developer to implement a more
complex way of doing things if they want to. So I could still implement
the more complex states sheet and other sheets idiom using this... if I
*really* wanted to :-)

Also, you suggestion above means that you can have complex state
information in the propertysheet, so long as you provide an
implementation of workflow_states() that simplifies it for use in a
ZCatalog.

I suppose that if, in search results, you need access to complex
information on the propertysheets, you can just add the appropriate
propertysheets to the meta_data of the catalog. Therefore, you don't
need an additional method that returns an object suitable for use as
catalog meta-data -- just directly use the propertysheets.


> I don't like having a "states" propertysheet, btw.  It's too generic of a
> name, IMHO.  The sheet(s) should be named according to the actual workflow
> taking place, so for content review it should be something like
> "reviewing_checklist", which is crystal clear as to what it's for.  Want to
> change the review process?  It should be clear that the first thing that
> developer needs to do is change the reviewing_checklist definition for that
> content type.  

I'd like to get some more feedback from other PTK developers here. Any
comments on what to call the "reviewing" sheet for PortalContent
objects?


> By the way, if one uses a ZPatterns approach in building a Portal, one can
> now cleanly build "Reviewing" and "Registration" specialists which get
> their contents by asking the portal catalog for items based on
> reviewing_checklist items and registration_checklist items...  Just a
> thought.  :)

Funny you should mention that, but the project I need this for has more
complex reviewing needs than the current PTK provides. The design
includes a Reviewing specialist, so I'll be able to try all this out
soon :-)


If I do as above, will it be forwards-compatible with where you want to
take SWARM?

--
Steve Alexander
Software Engineer
Cat-Box limited
http://www.cat-box.net