[Zope-CMF] Versioned Documents (was: Workflow first cut is ready)

[Shane Hathaway]

On Thu, 24 May 2001, Loren Stafford wrote:

> We haven't defined our requirements on cataloging former versions, because
> no one ever thought about it. Of course the documents have to be accessible
> thru the catalog in some way. But I can see arguments in favor
> (completeness) and against (redundancy) cataloging of entire contents.
> Perhaps there should be some simple way to override the searchable_text (or
> whatever it's called) method for former versions.

Actually, we should discuss the rationale for putting information about
older versions in the catalog.  Is it necessary?  Is it enough if you can
just get to the older versions via URL?

> > and will never go away.
>
> What? You must not have meant the former version object will not be
> deletable. There must be some way to delete it explicitly (under workflow
> perhaps).

True.  I was thinking of some other issue, though, and now I can't
remember what it was.  The weekend is coming. :-)

> > When an object is copied to a
> > version, does the copy participate in a different workflow than the
> > original?
>
> From a requirements view: Yes. In our environment, former versions should
> not be modified unless there is some powerful overriding need. That implies
> a different workflow. Also the decision to delete, would probably be part of
> a different workflow. Whether that's a different Workflow object or a
> different branch of the parent Workflow object is an implementation call, I
> suppose.

If the object copy is to be in a different workflow then the set of
workflows an object participates in depends on more than just the type of
the object, which the current workflow tool doesn't support.  But I think
we can get it to support it.

(Aside: I was recently pondering workflow and realized that maybe an
object can move in and out of workflows regardless of its type.  Take, for
example, UPS and FedEx, which temporarily put arbitrary packages in their
own workflow.  The person who makes the package does not need to do
anything special to make it possible for UPS/FedEx to tack on their own
workflow.)

> > Everyone, does this informal proposal serve your needs?
>
> Looking good!

Great.  From your feedback, though, I think we need to understand the
requirements better.

Shane