Michael Bernstein webmaven@lvcm.com
Sat, 29 Jul 2000 09:45:42 -0700

Chris Withers wrote:
> Shane Hathaway wrote:
> > Basically, where PTKBase currently uses subclassing to achieve
> > membership (as opposed to simple users), workflow, and discussability,
> > we should instead use singleton objects that add capabilities without
> > subclassing (although the initial implementation will make use of
> > existing subclasses.)  I think this is exactly what Phillip's vision is
> > for ZPatterns.
> 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.
> 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 ;-)

The way I see the naming issue (as a longtime user of
Squishdot, and a longtime observer of PTK) is that 'the PTK'
is the set of tools/products that would replace PTKBase.
After all, PTK stands for 'Portal Tool Kit', so it should be
a set of products/tools. So you would still 'download and
install' 'the PTK'.

PTKDemo, once everything but the superficial UI has been
shorn off and refactored into the PTK products, should
probably be implemented in pure DTML, since UI is what DTML
is for, and should then be renamed 'PortalDemo' or
'PortalFramework' or if you want to be verbose

Squishdot should also be reimplemented in DTML, since
everything other than it's UI should be encompassed by the
new products in 'the PTK'.

This would allow trivial customization of both the
'PortalDemo' and 'Squishdot', and potentially some mixing
and matching between the two.

I realize that what I've just said is about 80% restating
what Chris and Shane said, but I felt that the remaining 20%
difference was important.


Michael Bernstein.