[Zope-CMF] Re: RFC: GenericSetup Architecture Proposal
tseaver at palladion.com
Fri Sep 16 12:05:59 EDT 2005
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 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.
> 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?
I don't think so. What would we be adapting here? I like the fact that
the MetaProfile represents the set of policy choices which make up a
given "installable site configuration": e.g., imagine Nate's
Plone4Media as a setup profile. Or imagine a Silva profile, or one
which is built around "classic" Zope with PAS. I want to be able to
spell which handlers are in play for a given profile, to permit
installing them independently.
BTW Yuppie, will you be in Vienna next week for the Plone conference?
I'd enjoy chatting about this and other issues in person, if so.
Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 tseaver at palladion.com
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Zope-CMF