[Zope-CMF] Re: CMFSetup vs. factory_type_information

[yuppie]

Hi Jens!


Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> Here's some food for thought about a possible code simplification:
> 
> I was looking at the (annoying) duplication of configuration data  
> between CMFSetup type information XML files and  
> factory_type_information structures stored inside python modules. It  
> would be cool if the XML files could completely remove the need to  have 
> a factory_type_information, and that seems to be the case (mostly).

That would be a big win and we are coming closer to the point where we 
can do that. Not only for FTI data, but also for other settings like 
Actions and workflows.

> I noticed that when I pass an empty tuple as the "fti" argument to  
> ContentInit everything seems to work as expected. The only  shortcoming 
> I found was the fact that inside the TypesTool, when you  select 
> "Factory Type Information" from the ZMI add list, my type is  not 
> showing up anymore, which makes sense. If you want to get the  type, you 
> can use the portal_setup tool.

Using the setup tool for tasks like that is not easy. You can't select 
settings for a specific portal type and use them for your new type info 
object.

I hope the pending CMFSetup refactorings will make it easier to extract 
specific settings from profiles and to make them selectable in the add 
forms for tools, FTIs and workflows. (Just like complete profiles are 
selectable in the site add form.)

> Would it make sense to remove all those factory_type_information  
> structures for those types in CMF that have been converted to  CMFSetup? 
> Would there be any bad consequences that I'm not seeing?

1.) I like the feature that allows to create pre-configured FTIs/STIs 
and I don't think CMFSetup makes that feature obsolete.

2.) manage_addCMFSite and PortalGenerator are deprecated, but they still 
depend on the oldstyle FTI data.

3.) It might be easier to discuss this in the context of Tres' CMFSetup 
and roadmap proposals.


Cheers,

	Yuppie