[Zope-CMF] Re: CMFSetup vs. factory_type_information

[Jens Vagelpohl]

On 11 Sep 2005, at 17:22, yuppie 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.

The Actions thing is another issue that I noticed today. On the  
trunk, we seem to have "old style" actions on some tools (I  
specifically looked at the Membership and Memberdata tools because  
I'm re-doing CMFLDAP) that are not being used at all because they are  
now new-style actions in the Actions tool, and indeed those tools are  
not even registered as action providers anymore. Any objections to  
removing those old-style actions from tools that are no longer set up  
as action providers?


>> 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.)

I'm assuming the "settings" you mean here would be the equivalent of  
being able to instantiate CMFSetup-controlled types manually in the  
Types tool without going to the Setup tool? Yes, that functionality  
is missing. What's the ETA on those refactorings? Sounds interesting.


>> 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.

So in the end it looks like while we're retaining FTIs in CMF for  
backwards compatibility (thus already providing the answer to one  
question) it is perfectly safe for me in my products to do away with  
them. That was the implied question ;)

jens