[Zope-PTK] PTK II

[Chris Withers]

Michael Bernstein wrote:
> The way I see the naming issue (as a longtime user of
> Squishdot, and a longtime observer of PTK) is that 'the PTK'
> is the set of tools/products that would replace PTKBase.
> After all, PTK stands for 'Portal Tool Kit', so it should be
> a set of products/tools. So you would still 'download and
> install' 'the PTK'.

Hmm, perhaps this is an issue for the Installation System proposal on
dev.zope.org?
Given the way things are going right now, 'The PTK' won't exist then ;-)
Membership is split now, ZTopic does discussability(?) and LoginManager
has been factored out for a long time...
SO 'The PTK' would actually be a collection of Zope Products...

That said, given how Products work, maybe the bits just need to be
factored back in to a 'PTK' product?

I dunno, Shane, what do you think about how this fits into the
Installation System Proposal?

> PTKDemo, once everything but the superficial UI has been
> shorn off and refactored into the PTK products, should
> probably be implemented in pure DTML, since UI is what DTML
> is for, and should then be renamed 'PortalDemo' or
> 'PortalFramework' or if you want to be verbose
> 'DemoPortalFramework'.

Agreed...

> Squishdot should also be reimplemented in DTML, since
> everything other than it's UI should be encompassed by the
> new products in 'the PTK'.

All the bits that would make up 'Squishdot' are curerntly written in
DTML ;-)

The bits underneath would be replaced by the 'PTK' components...

> This would allow trivial customization of both the
> 'PortalDemo' and 'Squishdot', and potentially some mixing
> and matching between the two.

Hurm, a nice idea but I doubt it'll turn out quite that well :S

> I realize that what I've just said is about 80% restating
> what Chris and Shane said, but I felt that the remaining 20%
> difference was important.

Clarification is always a good thing :-)

cheers,

Chris