[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] RFC: Extensible propertysheet use cases

[yuppie]

Hi!


Dieter Maurer wrote:
> yuppie wrote at 2004-10-1 16:50 +0200:
> [...]
>>If we want to share code with other people, it's useful to use the same 
>>schema. Products can ship with Actions that include properties like 
>>'description' or 'target_viewport' and other Products will know how to 
>>use them. (I don't say that a standard schema or a limited set of 
>>standards can cover all use cases, but most of them.)
> 
> 
> I view standardization (and in particular schemas) as a multi level
> approach: there are standards on several levels:
> 
>   *  CMF standards
> 
>   *  Plone standards
> 
>   *  Company standards
> 
>   *  Workgroup standards
> 
>   *  Project standards
> 
>   *  Individual decisions (i.e. no standard at all)
> 
> 
> I my view, we should allow CMF users to define their standards
> below that of the CMF standards.
> Making "Actions" "PropertyManager"s allows this (although it is by
> far not the most optimal solution).

Agreed.

>>I'm not sure if you have other use cases in mind or if you think the 
>>PropertyManager machinery is the right tool for the use cases I mentioned.
> 
> 
> It is a feasible poor man's solution.
> 
> 
> I am a strong favorite of KISS (Keep It Stupid Simple)
> and XP: use poor man's solutions until you precisely understand
> what the high end solution requires and you are sure you need it;
> evolve incrementally.
> 
> 
> "PropertySheet"s (true ones, not sheets that keep all
> attributes in the main object) or XML-namespaces were standard approaches
> to implement the next evolutionary step.

Evolving incrementally isn't that easy if it comes to public releases. 
You always have to care about backwards compatibility or migration 
paths. That's why I'd prefer to skip the poor man's solution.


Cheers, Yuppie