[Zope-PTK] [Re: [Zope-PTK] PTK II]

[Chris Withers]

"Dan L. Pierson" wrote:
> I'm very happy to see that you agree with this.  There's a lot of UI
> work in Squishdot, but I agree that there really isn't much if any
> fundamental functionality beyond these three.

It's going to be interesting to see how the functionality in the
Squishdot versions of these compares with the current functionality of
the same objects in the PTK...

> Squishdot may turn out to be an excellent test case for the toolkit
> configurability.  

Urm, is that good or bad from my point of view ;-)
(I guess it depends whether I have my Squishdot or TeamPTK hat on at the
time ;-)

> As a start, the large amount of UI customization
> required should be a good test of Discussable and Document
> configuration.  

From my point of view, Squishdot is currently 100% discussable
documents, does that sound right?
I wonder how ZMailIn will fit into this? probably fairly seperately...

> Adding Slashdot level moderation and/or karma would
> probably be a good test of Membership and Workflow configuration.
> What do you think?

Yup, yup, I guess you mean a 'voting moderation' system rather than the
current rigid 'approved, not approved' Squishdot model?
What's the karma bit about?

>  > I can't help but notice that the extrapolation of this is a set of Zope
>  > products providing what is in PTKBase with PTKDemo becoming 'The PTK'
>  > So, from my point of view, there wouldn't be a 'SquishdotPTK', there
>  > would be 'Squishdot' which required a set of Zope products that happened
>  > to be previously called PTKBase.
>  >
>  > Does anyone else agree?
> 
> Yep.

At first I thought Phil's comments didn't, but nwo I see that they do,
unless I'm mistaken?

> Got to look at where this is going.  The idea of Zope products being
> like Debian packages with dependency auto installation is really cool.

Checkout the proposal on dev.zope.org :-)

cheers,

Chris