[Framework-Team] Re: PLIP 168 feedback (and fixes) was Re: Re: PLIP review overview

Martin Aspeli optilude at gmx.net
Sun Nov 19 00:55:30 UTC 2006


Tom Lazar wrote:
> hi guys,
> 
> i've been doing some work with iterate for a project here and wanted to 
> report back, as some of the issues raised here came up for me, too. for 
> compatability reasons i've been working with the `0.3-plone-2.1-2.5` 
> branch, but kapil has already incorporated some of my fixes  into trunk.
> 
> On Oct 5, 2006, at 6:51 PM, Alexander Limi wrote:
> 
>> I was working with a customer, deploying iterate and CMFEditions 
>> earlier this week, and found it very impressive. I did make the 
>> following notes of things I'd like to see fixed:
>>
>> - Product is not reinstallable (it complains that lock_info already
>> exists in the catalog)
> 
> fixed (and in trunk) with http://plone.org/products/iterate/issues/3
> 
>> - When viewing folder_contents, I get an error about the lock icon not
>> being available
> 
> fixed (and in trunk) with http://plone.org/products/iterate/issues/9
>>
>> - There is not enough security granularity to grant only CheckOut, but 
>> not CheckIn
> 
> fixed on my local branch (and submitted as patch) with 
> http://plone.org/products/iterate/issues/14/
> 
> there is still one issue that needs to be addressed IMHO. i've also 
> filed an issue for that:
> 
> http://plone.org/products/iterate/issues/10
> 
> basically, it means that references to children of an iterated folderish 
> object are broken after that object is iterated. kapil has postponed 
> that issue and i can understand that that's a really tough cookie to 
> solve generically but this somehow needs to be addressed if we want to 
> ship plone with iterate! if we can't fix the issue we should at least 
> prevent a COCI-cycle for folderish objects that contain children with 
> backreferences. any other suggestions?
> 
> other than that iterate has been great fun to work and play with! i 
> found its code to be very clean and and readable and has otherwise 
> proven rocksolid here. if the above issue is addressed i absolutely 
> recommend its inclusion in 3.0

Thanks for the testimonial and the fixes, Tom - this stuff is really, 
really valuable.

Speaking of which, is anyone picking up the Locking vs. iterate 
situation? As I recall, they need a little bit of syncing before they 
can happily co-exist, though Alec seemed to think the changes wouldn't 
be that hard.

Martin





More information about the Framework-Team mailing list