[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] CMF 1.5 release candidate imminent

[yuppie]

Hi Tres!


Tres Seaver wrote:
> I guess I don't understand Yuppie's objection.  The alternative is to 
> create another tool, which holds onto some set of "type annotations"; 
> the current code allows third-party packages to register "policy" data 
> about certain types, which seens natural to put into the types tool.
> 
> Yuppie, can you clarify again?  Would your objection go away if the 
> types tool export handled properties more generically?

My objections are on two levels:


1.) General concerns:
---------------------

TypeInfo properties are used for the interaction of different components 
that might live in different products. I believe that well defined 
interfaces are quite useful for that kind of interaction.

While I agree that having only one fixed schema for TypeInfos is too 
restrictive, using the PropertyManager machinery opens up Pandora's box.

I'd like to see the restrictions lifted in a more controlled way, e.g. by:

- Providing a way to replace TypeInfo objects. I could imagine that the 
frameworks on top of CMF - Plone and CPS - have their own TypeInfo classes.

- Providing a way for other components to add annotions to TypeInfo 
objects that are completely maintained and configured by these other 
components.


But I'm aware of the fact that I might be in a minority with my opinion. 
So - as I already mentioned in an earlier mail - I'm fine with accepting 
a decision from the project owner. We don't have to discuss this for ever.

The reason why I did bring this up again is the next point.


2.) implementation shortcomings:
--------------------------------

Maybe I should be happy that the additional properties are not 
configurable via FTI data or CMFSetup's TypesTool import/export. So they 
have to be maintained and configured by other components, as I proposed 
above for annotions.

The problem is that the TTW UI behaves completely different. You can add 
arbitrary properties and use them independent of any other components. 
And from that point of view its a bug if CMFSetup's TypesTool export 
handler ignores your settings. CMFSetup becomes useless if you can't 
trust it that the exports are complete.

So I think if we say A - making it possible to add arbitrary properties 
TTW - we also have to say B - making it possible to export/import them 
with CMFSetup.

(Besides that, the checked in change is really wired. It uses a subclass 
of PropertyManager and overrides the complete code of that subclass with 
PropertyManager code.)


Hope that makes things a bit clearer.

Cheers,
	Yuppie