Dan L. Pierson dan@sol.control.com
Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:33:49 -0400 (EDT)

Chris Withers writes:
 > Shane Hathaway wrote:
 > > So PTKBase should be a toolkit while PTKDemo is a framework built from
 > > that toolkit.
 > Yes :-)
 > And SquishdotPTK would be a framework that maybe added some more 'bits'
 > to the toolkit. I can't actually think of any it would need to add.
 > Document, Discussable and Workflow would cover what's currently needed.
 > ZMailIn will be needed later on (but should be optional) and maybe some
 > more bits...

I'm very happy to see that you agree with this.  There's a lot of UI
work in Squishdot, but I agree that there really isn't much if any
fundamental functionality beyond these three.  

Squishdot may turn out to be an excellent test case for the toolkit
configurability.  As a start, the large amount of UI customization
required should be a good test of Discussable and Document
configuration.  Adding Slashdot level moderation and/or karma would
probably be a good test of Membership and Workflow configuration.
What do you think?

 > I can't help but notice that the extrapolation of this is a set of Zope
 > products providing what is in PTKBase with PTKDemo becoming 'The PTK' 
 > So, from my point of view, there wouldn't be a 'SquishdotPTK', there
 > would be 'Squishdot' which required a set of Zope products that happened
 > to be previously called PTKBase.
 > Does anyone else agree?


 > I reckon this model would fit in really well with the proposed product
 > install system on dev.zope.org. So you would 'download and install' 'The
 > PTK' (probably needs a new name ;-) or 'Squishdot' which would require a
 > set of products, that might be the same, but use them in different ways
 > and layer a different UI over them...

Got to look at where this is going.  The idea of Zope products being
like Debian packages with dependency auto installation is really cool.