[Zope-PTK] PTK Status update

[Bill Anderson]

Kevin Dangoor wrote:

[...]

> >  * DC needs very much to have the PTK as a "simplifying
> >    layer" above the often overwhelming complexity which
> >    Zope presents to its users and programmers.  In
> >    particular, it is essential that the PTK present
> >    more the "product" interface (useful out-of-the-box)
> >    and less the "platform" interface (some assembly
> >    required).  I am working this afternoon on a document
> >    describing this vision for the PTK, at:
> >
> >      <URL http://www.zope.org/Products/PTK/ZWiki/OnceAndFuturePTK>
> 
> Let me restate this desire: I agree that PTK should provide a simplifying
> layer. But, as much as possible, I'd like to see PTK built from components
> that are useful to people who don't want the simplified interface. (This is
> the crux of my Refactoring PTK page
> http://www.zope.org/Products/PTK/ZWiki/RefactoringPTK )
> 
> This is something that I think is quite plausible. I think ZPatterns 0.4.0
> will provide great tools for creating very flexible PortalContent objects.
> Experienced Zope users will be able to download Membership and the different
> types of PortalContent and use them as they wish within Zope. They'll be
> able to configure new content notifications and policies however they want
> (and vary that from folder to folder). New users will run a wizard that will
> give them a complete Portal, with the Membership and PortalContent review
> policies already configured.


I agree very strongly with this. Another feature this would add is the
ability for a Zope Hosting Provider to have different portals available
on the same Zope server, without neccesarily recreating all the details.
It will also allow for existing sites to migrate piece by piece to a
portal arrangement, picking and choosing what they can fit in, and what
they need to avoid for the moment.

To help explain my thoughts here, imagine a News portal, and a Club
portal. The two portals differ in significant ways, much beyond the
appearance and interface. Perhaps the News Portal doesn't need members
with content; members get customization, etc., but no 'folder' to
publish things in.  The Club portal however, relies on a significant
amount of member contribution for the site, and they would need to
retain the member folder concept. Sure, you can get around this by some
source hacking, but isn't that what we want to avoid? As it stands, PTK
doesn't have this critical flexibility.

I hope that last paragraph cleared my thoughts  up. :-)