[Zope-CMF] Re: CMF 1.6 change broke Plone compatibility

[yuppie]

Hi Rob! Hi Jens!


Rob Miller wrote:
> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>
>> On 20 Dec 2005, at 19:53, yuppie wrote:
>>
>>> The intention was to make things consistent. CMF 1.5 and CMF 2.0  
>>> have different ways to register custom type info classes. Before  
>>> that change both machineries were broken on the 1.6 branch because  
>>> they were merged in an insane way.
>>>
>>> I fixed the new machinery because
>>>
>>> - most code used already the new machinery (and I thought that was  
>>> Rob's intention)
>>>
>>> - this doesn't break many products
>>>
>>> I don't mind if you switch the 1.6 branch back to the old  machinery, 
>>> but there are more changes necessary than just reverting  the last 
>>> checkin.
>>
>> Like what exactly?
>>
>> With all due respect, the 1.6 branch should *not* break stuff that  
>> works find on 1.5. The specific goal for 1.6 was to be "1.5 plus  
>> GenericSetup" so that it stays 1.5-compatible. This change has  
>> nothing to do with GenericSetup from all I can tell. Please don't  
>> just say "OK, change it back if you want, but there may be traps  
>> elsewhere". I do not know what all needs to be changed. I'll be happy  
>> to do it, but I need to know what else is involved.

Besides the import/export handlers Rob mentions below this affects all 
the TypesTool code that used 'typeClasses' (grep for it in 1.5) and the 
add forms for type infos.

> yes, i believe the agreement was to try to keep 1.6 as close to 1.5 as 
> possible, with the exception of GenericSetup.  the types stuff is the 
> greyest area, however, because the changes in the way TypeInfo objects 
> are handled btn 1.5 and 2.0 has a considerable impact on the setup 
> profiles and the import/export nodes.  my original idea was to have the 
> 1.6 types import adapter use the 2.0 style, containment-based profile 
> format, but to generate 1.5 style TypeInfo objects.  i haven't had time 
> in recent weeks to keep up w/ all of the stuff that you've been doing, 
> yuppie, but i do have a bit of concern that we're causing too much 
> divergence btn 1.5 and 1.6 operationally.  if we stray too far, then 
> tres will stop forward-porting any 1.5 fixes that he might make... ;-).

I really don't care much about how this is resolved. But from Rob's 
checkins and the discussion following this mail

http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2005-November/023399.html

I had the impression that CMF 1.6 should provide backwards compatibility 
for Products written for Plone 2.1, not for Plone 2.1 itself. 
CMFDynamicViewFTI is an integral part of Plone 2.2 and I would be 
surprised if any other Plone product registers its own type info class. 
AFAICS the same applies to FlexibleTypeInformation and CPS.


I don't think that my backports from the trunk widened that gap between 
1.5 and 1.6. It existed from the beginning of the 1.6 branch.


Cheers,

	Yuppie