[Zope-CMF] Future CMF

[Robert Rottermann]

Paul,
I would like to help with the workflow thing.
Since I believe there will be more that will work on this topic, I would
rather be in the second rank.

Robert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Rottermann" <robert@redcor.ch>
To: <robert@rocad.ch>
Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 2:03 PM
Subject: Fw: [Zope-CMF] Future CMF


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Everitt" <paul@eurozope.org>
> To: "Erik Lange" <erik@mmmanager.org>
> Cc: <zope-cmf@zope.org>
> Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 10:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [Zope-CMF] Future CMF
>
>
> >
> > Speaking of "Future CMF" (and thanks, Erik, for relabeling the subject
> > line), Jim's announcement of proposal on this topic has received no
> > comments:
> >
> >
> > http://dev.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ComponentArchitecture/
> > ContentManagementProjectsForZope3
> >
> > Zero, zippo, nada.
> >
> > Here's what we'd really like to see: people who care deeply about one
> > of the topics (workflow, metadata, etc.) become the champion for that
> > topic.
> >
> > For those that don't want to be champions...at least read the section
> > under "Background".  I tried to capture some of the spirit and intent
> > of what has gone on up to now.  This latest discussion has illustrated
> > that we have more work to do in getting this nailed down!
> >
> > --Paul
> >
> > On vendredi, oct 4, 2002, at 23:10 Europe/Paris, Erik Lange wrote:
> >
> > > At 10:16 PM 10/4/02, Helge TEsdal wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > >> If I get this right, you are afraid of CMFCore (and in time Zope3)
> > >> becoming Plone. If this is the case, you got nothing to worry about.
> > >> The
> > >> CMF and Zope3 developers know what they are doing and would never try
> > >> to
> > >> put Plone into the base frameworks. None of the Plone developers are
> > >> arguing that CMFCore should evolve into Plone either.
> > >
> > > Yes - I was afraid of something like that.. No - I'm not anymore :-)
> > >
> > > The FUD is over ! *S*
> > >
> > >> That being said, sometimes people develop components that would fit
> > >> into
> > >> the framework.
> > >
> > > No doubt about that.
> > >
> > >> If features from CMFDefault, Plone, or MMManager for that
> > >> matter are considered suitable for the core framework, they can be
> > >> included. Considered suitable are the key words here. If you want
> > >> examples, the URLTool from CMFDefault and the CustomizationPolicies
> > >> from
> > >> Plone might be useful in CMFCore.
> > >
> > > Or DublinCore from CMF Default.. you're absolutely right again.
> > >
> > >> Deciding where to put the different
> > >> features is an ongoing process, and I believe the CMF developers are
> > >> able
> > >> to make the right choices.
> > >
> > > Jep - I have no doubt about that.
> > >
> > >> You have also expressed a wish for better modularization in Plone,
> > >> enabling developers to use different components more easily. This is
> > >> something the Plone team will do.
> > >
> > > Great :-)
> > >
> > >> It might also give a better impression
> > >> of how Plone relates to CMFCore and CMFDefault and help avoid
> > >> misunderstandings and confusion in the future.
> > >
> > > This was my point :-)
> > >
> > > Things was getting a bit to mixed as I saw it, so what I was realy
> > > asking for, was that we mentally stopped up for a moment, and looked
> > > at what we've got and asked eachother what we want in the end, before
> > > things got too mixed up...
> > >
> > > Here at mmm, we have just re-designed the base of our system
> > > completely, based on the knowledge we've achived developing what we
> > > got now. It's a very healing proccess, once it's done - now we just
> > > need to do the actual coding ;-)
> > >
> > > And allthough we haven't coded our "new generation" yet, the fact that
> > > we all now have the same mental picture of it, makes it possible to
> > > code new stuff still using the old generation, that will also work in
> > > the next...
> > >
> > >> As a final point I would like to add that there is a good dialogue
> > >> between
> > >> the CMF developers and the Plone developers, and that the Plone team
> > >> certainly feel like they are contributing to improving CMF.
> > >
> > > I agree - Plone _is_ a killer app for Zope and has a very large base
> > > of commited and extremely competent developers - no doubt about that !
> > >
> > > And Plone developers and all other CMF related developers, should use
> > > this list to share their knowledge and experiences with CMF, and help
> > > eachother to focus on "features from CMFDefault, Plone, or MMManager
> > > for that matter are considered suitable for the core framework", as
> > > you said. And as you also said; "Considered suitable are the key words
> > > here".
> > >
> > > So that said, my complaint was, that I feelt that people sometimes
> > > tends to forget the "suitability for the framework"-aspect, when
> > > discussing "various features and products"... Mkay ? :-)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Erik
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@zope.org
> > > http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf
> > >
> > > See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@zope.org
> > http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf
> >
> > See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
> >
>