[Zope-CMF] Re: CMF 2.0 Release Status

[yuppie]

Hi Tres!


Tres Seaver wrote:
> 
> yuppie wrote:
> 
>> I agree with your concerns. Views and the FiveActionsTool both use
>> Five/Zope3 technology for the price of dropping TTW/GenericSetup support
>> and introducing a second way to do the same things.
> 
> Hmm, I'm not sure I see how we are trading away GenericSetup support.  I
> was under the FiveActonsTool *supplements* the stock action providers,
> exposing Zope3 menu items as actions.

Yes. But those supplemental Actions are not managed through 
GenericSetup. It would be easy to ship Five products with a setup 
profile that sets up the Actions. I'm sure they anyway need somme CMF 
specific setup.

A major advantage of GenericSetup over ZCML is the ability to change the 
configuration TTW and write it back to the file system.

>> While I didn't vote for including the FiveActionsTool into the CMF core
>> I support the effort to move to views. But we are not there yet and I
>> doubt we'll have view based skins in CMF 2.0 that can fully replace the
>> old CMF skins.
> 
> I imagine that we may be able to ship a separate "Five-aware" setup
> profile, and allow folks to use it as an alternative.  Likely we can
> configure the views into place in either case,  but have the "stock"
> profile surface the skin methods / templates rather than views.
> 
>> The TTW features are a strength of the CMF. The fact that Tres and
>> Phillip plan to sprint on local skin customization for CMF 2.1 is good
>> news. As I already said in an other mail I would not enable views by
>> default in CMF 2.0. For now I consider them an experimental feature of
>> the CMF that advanced users can enable if they want. As soon as
>> customization and other issues are resolved views should replace the old
>> skins machinery.
> 
> In particular, the cost of TTW flexibility is pretty high, both in terms
> of performance and maintainability.  Shipping a version of the CMF which
> allows folks who *don't* need or want the flexibility to avoid paying
> those costs will be a win.

I guess those folks will enable the views using ZCML. But it sounds like 
a good idea to provide a setup profile that disables stuff that's not 
needed in that case.


Cheers,

	Yuppie