[Zope-CMF] Multilingual site with CMF/Plone?
Thu, 13 Feb 2003 01:01:24 +0100
At 12:03 AM 2/13/03, Paul Winkler wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 11:10:55PM +0100, Erik Lange wrote:
> > At 05:17 PM 2/12/03, Paul Winkler wrote:
> > >On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 10:53:22AM +0100, Erik Lange wrote:
> > >> >> Well, if the CMF is ugly / broken / incorrect or doesn't do what we
> > >want,
> > >> >> I'm sure your suggestion or improvements will be appreciated.
> > >> >
> > >> >CMF Default != CMF
> > >>
> > >> Hmm.. did I say anything about CMF Default above ?
> > >
> > >Yes. "if the CMF is ugly" implies CMFDefault, because
> > >CMFCore does not look like anything.
> > Sorry, that was not what I meant.. I'm aware of the difference ;-)
>But you continue to write as if you're not.
Argh.. sorry - must be my bad English :-(
> > The statement "if the CMF is ugly / broken / incorrect or doesn't do what
> > we want" is a quote from one of Andy's ealier posts...
>ah sorry, i was confused by that out of context. I was interpreting
>"ugly" too literally, i assumed it was about look+feel.
Okay, sorry, it wasn't...
> > What I'm trying to say is, that most people aren't aware that Plone has
> > chosen another path, and therefore aren't aware of the difference between
> > the CMF Default implementaion and Plone's implementation.
>i agree that this can be confusing. I appreciate you trying
>to help clear this up.
Thanks - I'm sorry if I bring more confusion to the debate...
> > If Plone really is going in another direction, I think this should be made
> > clear and documented, so it doesn't come as a suprise to new users, when
> > they are trying to use products that are bulid "the old fashion way".
>alternatively, the fact that CMFDefault is not in any way
>standard or privileged should "be made clear and documented",
>because when you develop a product that targets CMFDefault you are
>only targeting a particular implementation on top of CMFCore and you
>should not assume that all other layers on top of CMFCore will be compatible.
You do have a point there.
>IMO this will be greatly helped if we go down the path Seb Bacon suggested:
>CMFDefault should be unbundled from CMFCore.
I agree :-)
> > Plone
> > started out being just a skin for CMF
>a skin for CMFDefault. you did it again! ;-)
Argh.. sorry - I didn't write Default though... I've explained what I mean
in an ealier post:
"When I'm talking about "standard CMF", I don't mean "CMF Default", but CMF
> > - now it's a hole new CMF
> > implementation, but is still seen as some nice looking skins and some
> > ekstra functions to the raw standard CMF.
>Once again - there is no "standard CMF" except CMFCore.
>CMFDefault is not "standard".
Once again: "When I'm talking about "standard CMF", I don't mean "CMF
Default", but CMF Core."
>I kind of wish it was still called "Demo" instead of "Default",
>because isn't that what it is - a demo? not that it isn't useful,
>just that it's not supposed to be conceptually part of the core.
Hmm.. I believe that independence of the two would do the trick, and I
believe that CMF Default is so useful, that just calling it a Demo would be
a bit misleading. We are quite happy using it and find that it fulfills our
needs, so to us it _is_ the default framework implementation, that we build
our product on top of... yes, it's "ugly" to look at, but that just a skin,
so that is easily fixed, and then you have a very clean and flexible
framework. Plone does a hole lot more, that for our purposes just slows
thing down, as we don't need all the bells and whistles of Plone. No
Maybe it should be called "CMF Basic" ? That's how I see it, and that's all
we need - a basic CMF implementation (again, no offence!).
> > Just look at the subject of this thread: "... CMF/Plone" implies, that
> > there is no difference in the implementation,
>I disagree, I think CMF/Plone implies a relationship not an identity.
Hmm.. okay, point taken - maybe I've misunderstood that due to my lack of
knowledge to the English language.. I hope you can forgive a stupid Dane...