[Zope-CMF] Re: modifying TypeInformation's properties

[yuppie]

Hi!


Florent Guillaume wrote:
>>Maybe special kinds of types should have their own Type Information 
>>class?
> 
> Why ? The TypeInformation classes are implementation details about the
> type. The should not constrain how the TI is used, and should be
> interchangeable.
> 
>>Factory-based Type Information and Scriptable Type Information 
>>are made for ordinary content types.
> 
> I don't know what you mean by that. They are made to construct CMF types.

CMF *content* types. If I understand the concept of portlets right, they 
are *presentation* objects. Sometimes its useful to use different 
classes for different kinds of objects. Don't know if that's the best 
solution in this case.

>>In general, I'd like to see a discussion about questions like these:
>>
>>- Do we need more or less configuration options in the type info 
>>objects? See <http://collector.zope.org/CMF/33> for a proposal to remove 
>>"allow discussion" configuration from type infos.
> 
> 
> #33 specifically talks about UI, not where the info is stored.
> I'm not aware of anyone apart from you advocating moving that info
> somewhere else from the TI.

I'm not advocating anything. I'm just asking questions.

The checked in change adds an UI for configuring arbitrary properties. 
That's contrary to the goals of <http://collector.zope.org/CMF/33>.

>>- Is the current default schema up to date, or should some fields be 
>>added / modified?
>>
>>- If we allow to add arbitrary fields to FTIs and STIs, how do 
>>components play together? Are the content types responsible for setting 
>>these values or the components that use these fields?
> 
> 
> Just see them as annotations. Those who care about them will set them
> and check them.

If products use additional properties, other products have to care about 
providing them.

So if you write a content type, you have to add properties like

   cps_display_as_document_in_listing
   cps_is_searchable
   cps_this
   cps_that
   plone_is_folderish
   plone_is_searchable
   plone_that
   cmf_default_this

That bloats the 'Properties' tab. Adding new properties TTW is error 
prone: You might type names wrong; nothing helps you to keep the TI 
objects in sync; ...

All the known issues with the Properties machinery. I believe there was 
a good reason why the SimpleItemWithProperties class was added to CMF.


Cheers,
	Yuppie