[Zope-CMF] Re: RFC: GenericSetup Architecture Proposal

[yuppie]

Hi Tres!


Tres Seaver wrote:
> 
> I owe another proposal on filesystem export / import of content, but
> this one was a prerequisite.  Please comment on the list, as the
> discussion facilities on the site are pretty much useless.
> 
> http://www.zope.org/Products/CMF/docs/requirements/proposals/GenericSetup_architecture

I'm not sure if I understand the proposed way to register SetupHandlers:

Obviously you propose a new global registry for available SetupHandlers 
with new API and ZCML for registering SetupHandlers.

At the first glance that makes export_steps.xml and import_steps.xml 
obsolete. But there is the MetaProfile that has to be shipped with a 
BaselineProfile and that is maintained in the tool. Why do we still need 
MetaProfiles? Can't we just walk through a site/profile and 
export/import each object that has a handler?

http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2005-September/022877.html 
proposes to use im- and export adapters for content objects. Can't we do 
the same for config objects, registering the SetupHandlers as adapters? 
And get rid of the special SetupHandler registries completely?


Cheers,

	Yuppie