[Zope-CMF] Re: Tools as local utilities

[Miles Waller]

Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> On 10 Sep 2006, at 20:09, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> 
>>> Just out of curiosity, which dependencies does Plone 3.0 have that  
>>> require Zope 2.10? Or was it some papal edict to use 2.10?
>>
>>
>> 2.10 really is lovely, because Zope 3.3 is lovely. :)
>>
>> The local components story is much, much better. Look at Hanno's  
>> GSLocalAddOns package (which really should move to CMFCore once  
>> CMFCore is happy to require 2.10+), or other examples. Basically,  it 
>> solves a lot of the problems we had with 2.9 and earlier in that  it 
>> was hard to make things installable into a CMF site - a global  
>> utility or adapter was an either-or proposition for all sites in a  
>> Zope instance.
>>
>> Being able to use local adapters (and local event handlers) is also  
>> very useful.
>>
>> Plus, the whole story around formlib, zope.contentprovider,  
>> zope.viewlet is improved, (these three tools are great - if you  
>> haven't played with them, go read the doctests, or Rocky's formlib  
>> tutorial on plone.org) and Five has caught up to these to make them  
>> accessible to us.
> 
> 
> Personally, I'm neutral on moving the requirement for CMF 2.1 to Zope  
> 2.10. Obviously we're not using any of those new features yet, but it  
> would be nice to enable their use by mandating 2.10. CMF 2.2 will  move 
> the bar higher I'd wager.
> 
> I'd love to hear some kind of yay/nay for making Zope 2.10 the  required 
> platform for CMF 2.1 from some other people like Tres, Yvo,  Florent etc.

One thing that would be good about this is that the CMFUid suite could 
be deprecated in favour of an implementation based on zope3's intids 
utility.

There was a discussion a while back about the future of that package: 
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2006-April/024373.html

Miles