[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] enhancing Actions: a rough proposal

[yuppie]

Hi Dieter!


Dieter Maurer wrote:
> yuppie wrote at 2004-11-21 21:14 +0100:
> 
>>Products add their Actions to the 
>>ActionsTool like they add their skin layers to the SkinsTool.
> 
> I find SkinsTool configuration for additional tools/products
> quite difficult and error prone (in CMF 1.4; I did not yet look
> at CMF 1.5) -- much more difficult than action configuration.
> 
> I would not like a similar mechanism for action configurations.

While CMFSetup doesn't work quite well for add-ons, I hope these 
problems can be resolved. My goal would be that Actions can be 
configured by defining them in the actions.xml file of add-on profiles. 
CMFSetup already keeps all Actions besides type and workflow Actions in 
one place, so configuration would not change very much.

I doubt it would be an improvement if several tools would act as skin 
providers.

>>Type Actions are no longer defined in the TypesTool.
> 
> 
> I do not like this.
> 
> Different types on top of the same content class often
> have different actions.
> 
> 
>>Using Method 
>>Aliases, one Action defined in the ActionsTool can be used for all types 
>>or a subset.
> 
> 
> The "alias" mechanism is often not flexible enough: they
> cannot handle request parameters, for example.
> 
> We use, e.g.:
> 
>    Name: Add NewsItem
>    URL:  string:$content_url/addItem?type=NewsItem
>    
>    Name: Add AdItem
>    URL:  string:$content_url/addItem?type=AdItem

I don't understand this example. Are these Actions of 'NewsItem' and 
'AdItem' or are these 'Folder' Actions? I only could see a problem if 
these actions would need to have the same id.

>>CMFActionIcons becomes obsolete. The consolidation of type Actions makes 
>>the post-processing of Actions useless. Icons can be defined in the 
>>Action objects themselves. Having all Actions of a category in one 
>>place, 'Priority' becomes useless. They can be ordered in their container.
> 
> 
> It is not natural, to define all actions in one place.
> 
> Especially, implicitly defined actions (such as workflow actions)
> would not be in the central place.

This depends on the point of view. If you look at them as part of the 
workflow, that would be the 'natural' place. But if you have the 
resulting menu in mind, its easier to maintain the Actions in a 
structure that's similar to the menu structure.

AFAICT people always have problems to find a specific Action in the 
current structure.


Cheers,
	Yuppie