[Zope-CMF] Re: trouble applying extension profiles
y.2006_ at wcm-solutions.de
Mon Apr 3 10:38:29 EDT 2006
Florent Guillaume wrote:
> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>> On 2 Apr 2006, at 09:34, Rob Miller wrote:
>>> it's in now, r66291.
>>> and i've also committed the .delete file support implementation,
>>> again on the 1.6 branch. if there are no complaints, i'll merge to
>>> 2.0 and trunk on monday.
>> Thanks Rob! I hope Lennart and Yvo will take a look this weekend or
>> Monday. My own goal (or the reason for making the corresponding
>> collector issue a release blocker) was to just prevent content
>> deletion as described in the issue. Anything beyond that I am neutral
> FWIW I don't have an opinion on this, as we don't use the content.py I/O
> export methods. The XML/NodeAdapterBase is enough for us.
> But I'm curious as to why there are two import/export frameworks, the
> config one (NodeAdapterBase) and the content one (FileSystemExporter).
> Couldn't they be merged? Or at least some adapters reused?
I'd call them sub-frameworks. Both provide setup steps for the main
framework. Nevertheless I agree that one sub-framework for both tasks
should be enough. They both solve very similar problems with different
design decisions and implementations.
The current situation has historical reasons: Tres worked on the content
handler and I worked on the configuration handlers. We never managed to
discuss our different approaches and to agree on a common sub-framework.
I'm not happy with this, but IMHO there are more important issues to
resolve in GenericSetup.
More information about the Zope-CMF