[Zope-CMF] Re: RFC: GenericSetup Architecture Proposal

yuppie y.2005- at wcm-solutions.de
Tue Sep 13 13:31:15 EDT 2005

Hi Tres!

Tres Seaver wrote:
> I owe another proposal on filesystem export / import of content, but
> this one was a prerequisite.  Please comment on the list, as the
> discussion facilities on the site are pretty much useless.
> http://www.zope.org/Products/CMF/docs/requirements/proposals/GenericSetup_architecture

I'm not sure if I understand the proposed way to register SetupHandlers:

Obviously you propose a new global registry for available SetupHandlers 
with new API and ZCML for registering SetupHandlers.

At the first glance that makes export_steps.xml and import_steps.xml 
obsolete. But there is the MetaProfile that has to be shipped with a 
BaselineProfile and that is maintained in the tool. Why do we still need 
MetaProfiles? Can't we just walk through a site/profile and 
export/import each object that has a handler?

proposes to use im- and export adapters for content objects. Can't we do 
the same for config objects, registering the SetupHandlers as adapters? 
And get rid of the special SetupHandler registries completely?



More information about the Zope-CMF mailing list