[Zope-CMF] Re: GS catalog support

[yuppie]

Hi!


Georges Racinet wrote:
> 
> Le 11 mai 2006, à 00:36, Rob Miller a écrit :
> 
>> yuppie wrote:
>> 
>>> I still believe a refactoring as proposed here would be an 
>>> improvement, it would also resolve the multiple catalogs issue:
>>> http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2005-November/023331.html
>>
>> i'm not so fond of this idea, actually.  while i'm all for simplifying 
>> things, i'm loathe to give up the flexibility that you admit we'll be 
>> sacrificing. GenericSetup is likely to be used in a myriad of ways, 
>> just because we can manage to get CMF itself to work with a less 
>> flexible GenericSetup doesn't mean that other use cases won't need it. 
>>  i'm especially concerned about losing the ability to have one tool's 
>> import step depend on another's.
>>
>> i'm all for reducing boilerplate, though; i 100% agree that there's 
>> too much of it currently.  can you imagine a way to reduce the 
>> boilerplate without sacrificing the flexibility?

Sorry. I did not mean to start that discussion again at this point. I 
just wanted to make sure that *if* we decide to implement that proposal 
the catalog support changes don't make implementing it harder.

To start the discussion again the mentioned proposal is inappropriate 
because it doesn't reflect the discussion that already took place. The 
proposal is deferred because one result of the discussion was that we 
need a replacement for the partial imports: An import/export tab for the 
tools themselves.

And this is not just about reducing boilerplate, it's also about moving 
to a more object orientated approach that makes new features like the 
import/export tab on object level easier to implement.

> Hi, sorry to be late to this party, I didn't notice this proposal, but 
> maybe was it simply because I didn't use GS at all at this time... I'll 
> take the opportunity to mention that the two flexibility features you 
> mention are quite important to me.
> 
> When developing with GS I rerun just one step all the time, be it for 
> quickness or because I may be fixing a small dent while working on a 
> bigger thing at the same time. It's also interesting when you want, say, 
> to update a broken workflow on the fly without changing site-dependent 
> parameters, like LDAP connections and such.
> 
> As for dependencies, it's true that the one mentionned is a bit 
> artificial, but there are more serious ones outside of the CMF. One 
> really needs to have portal_types set to initialize an object built on a 
> FTI, for instance. This is of course much more serious.

I'm not sure I understand your example. After the proposed change there 
still will be 3 setup steps:

1.) Setting up all the tools with default (empty) settings.

2.) Importing the settings for all the tools in random order.

3.) Importing dependent import steps like content import.

AFAICS your example will work with that order. But I would be interested 
in learning about use cases that will not work with that order.

> Finally, having the tools being exported under their true id breaks 
> snapshots (although I'm not 100% sure if they are a feature of the GS 
> tool itself), because of the UniqueObject inheritance, but that could be 
> easily solved.

Yes. Snapshots are a generic GS feature. And of course we need backwards 
compatibility code if we change the file names. But the renaming might 
not be necessary.


Cheers,

	Yuppie