[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] basic Five support - a small proposal

[yuppie]

Hi!


Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On 5/24/05, yuppie <y.2005- at wcm-solutions.de> wrote:
> 
>>There is already the CMFonFive project, but now that Zope 2.8 ships with
>>Five I'd like to see basic Five support in CMF itself:
> 
> 
> Well.... you have a point. I see some options:
> 
> 1. Moving CMFonFive to Zope corps CVS and simply shipping it with the
> next version of CMF.
> 
> 2. Moving the things that are in CMFonFive into CMFCore.

Moving CMFonFive to the CMF repository might make sense. But I don't 
think it is mature enough to be shipped with the CMF distribution or to 
be integrated into CMFCore.

And while CMF interface definitions really don't belong into an add-on 
product, there is nothing wrong with shipping additional tools and 
TypeInfo classes in separate products.

> 3. Moving just some parts, and thereby still requireing CMFonFive for
> any reasonably CMF integration, and hence gaining very little. ;)

Maybe we first have to discuss what we want to gain with Five support.

My goal is to use Five technology for features CMF doesn't provide or 
that could be significantly improved by using Five. I'm sure there are 
other areas where CMF could benefit from Five, but these are the things 
I've currently on my list:

- schema based content and forms:

There are still some issues that have to be resolved in Five, but the 
CMF changes I proposed are all I need in CMF.

- object specific behavior based on marker interfaces:

Flon does it in a Plone specific way. I think this could become a 
generic Five feature, but I still have to figure out why Zope 3.1 has 
lost the UI for marker interfaces.

- events:

Didn't work on this so far, but it would be really nice if we could use 
Five events in CMF.

>>3.) a base class for Five content:
>>The PortalContent class does not implement everything required in
>>CMFDefault. AFAICS at least some DublinCore methods are missing. We
>>could either add a subset as in PortalFolder or use the complete
>>DefaultDublinCoreImpl.
> 
> Well, that's still not a Five issue. But it could be a reasonably
> thing to have in CMFDefault anyway.

I agree that the class as proposed would be useful for non-Five content 
as well. But there might be reasons to make that base class Five 
specific at a later point, so I thought it would be a good idea to 
announce it as five specific from the beginning.


Cheers,

	Yuppie