[Zope-CMF] Re: GS catalog support

Georges Racinet gracinet at nuxeo.com
Thu May 11 08:33:32 EDT 2006

Le 11 mai 2006, à 14:00, yuppie a écrit :

> Hi!
> Georges Racinet wrote:
>> Le 11 mai 2006, à 00:36, Rob Miller a écrit :
>>> yuppie wrote:
>>>> I still believe a refactoring as proposed here would be an 
>>>> improvement, it would also resolve the multiple catalogs issue:
>>>> http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2005-November/023331.html
>>> i'm not so fond of this idea, actually.  while i'm all for 
>>> simplifying things, i'm loathe to give up the flexibility that you 
>>> admit we'll be sacrificing. GenericSetup is likely to be used in a 
>>> myriad of ways, just because we can manage to get CMF itself to work 
>>> with a less flexible GenericSetup doesn't mean that other use cases 
>>> won't need it.  i'm especially concerned about losing the ability to 
>>> have one tool's import step depend on another's.
>>> i'm all for reducing boilerplate, though; i 100% agree that there's 
>>> too much of it currently.  can you imagine a way to reduce the 
>>> boilerplate without sacrificing the flexibility?
> Sorry. I did not mean to start that discussion again at this point. I 
> just wanted to make sure that *if* we decide to implement that 
> proposal the catalog support changes don't make implementing it 
> harder.
> To start the discussion again the mentioned proposal is inappropriate 
> because it doesn't reflect the discussion that already took place. The 
> proposal is deferred because one result of the discussion was that we 
> need a replacement for the partial imports: An import/export tab for 
> the tools themselves.

Well, sorry to react to outdated things then :-)

> And this is not just about reducing boilerplate, it's also about 
> moving to a more object orientated approach that makes new features 
> like the import/export tab on object level easier to implement.

I see, I can understand that, since I make a frequent use of the XML 
export tab in CPS.  Also, the list of I/O steps is so long that I have 
to scroll in the setup tool import tab. What you're saying would indeed 
be user-friendlier (at least for me).

Also getting rid of the handler functions which don't do much would be 
without any doubt better.

>> Hi, sorry to be late to this party, I didn't notice this proposal, 
>> but maybe was it simply because I didn't use GS at all at this 
>> time... I'll take the opportunity to mention that the two flexibility 
>> features you mention are quite important to me.
>> When developing with GS I rerun just one step all the time, be it for 
>> quickness or because I may be fixing a small dent while working on a 
>> bigger thing at the same time. It's also interesting when you want, 
>> say, to update a broken workflow on the fly without changing 
>> site-dependent parameters, like LDAP connections and such.
>> As for dependencies, it's true that the one mentionned is a bit 
>> artificial, but there are more serious ones outside of the CMF. One 
>> really needs to have portal_types set to initialize an object built 
>> on a FTI, for instance. This is of course much more serious.
> I'm not sure I understand your example. After the proposed change 
> there still will be 3 setup steps:
> 1.) Setting up all the tools with default (empty) settings.
> 2.) Importing the settings for all the tools in random order.
> 3.) Importing dependent import steps like content import.
> AFAICS your example will work with that order. But I would be 
> interested in learning about use cases that will not work with that 
> order.

No, no this looks fine, at least at first sight. I think all 
dependencies within step 3 get automatically solved by the intrinsic 
tree nature of the thing. I'll get back to you if something comes to my 
mind, and it doesn't fall in the 'bad design anyway' category.

>> Finally, having the tools being exported under their true id breaks 
>> snapshots (although I'm not 100% sure if they are a feature of the GS 
>> tool itself), because of the UniqueObject inheritance, but that could 
>> be easily solved.
> Yes. Snapshots are a generic GS feature. And of course we need 
> backwards compatibility code if we change the file names. But the 
> renaming might not be necessary.

Well, if the snapshots add '.xml' to the objects id, they won't fail.



More information about the Zope-CMF mailing list