[Zope-CMF] Re: CMFSetup vs. factory_type_information
y.2005- at wcm-solutions.de
Sun Sep 11 12:22:30 EDT 2005
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> Here's some food for thought about a possible code simplification:
> I was looking at the (annoying) duplication of configuration data
> between CMFSetup type information XML files and
> factory_type_information structures stored inside python modules. It
> would be cool if the XML files could completely remove the need to have
> a factory_type_information, and that seems to be the case (mostly).
That would be a big win and we are coming closer to the point where we
can do that. Not only for FTI data, but also for other settings like
Actions and workflows.
> I noticed that when I pass an empty tuple as the "fti" argument to
> ContentInit everything seems to work as expected. The only shortcoming
> I found was the fact that inside the TypesTool, when you select
> "Factory Type Information" from the ZMI add list, my type is not
> showing up anymore, which makes sense. If you want to get the type, you
> can use the portal_setup tool.
Using the setup tool for tasks like that is not easy. You can't select
settings for a specific portal type and use them for your new type info
I hope the pending CMFSetup refactorings will make it easier to extract
specific settings from profiles and to make them selectable in the add
forms for tools, FTIs and workflows. (Just like complete profiles are
selectable in the site add form.)
> Would it make sense to remove all those factory_type_information
> structures for those types in CMF that have been converted to CMFSetup?
> Would there be any bad consequences that I'm not seeing?
1.) I like the feature that allows to create pre-configured FTIs/STIs
and I don't think CMFSetup makes that feature obsolete.
2.) manage_addCMFSite and PortalGenerator are deprecated, but they still
depend on the oldstyle FTI data.
3.) It might be easier to discuss this in the context of Tres' CMFSetup
and roadmap proposals.
More information about the Zope-CMF