[Framework-Team] PLIP 20144

Timo Stollenwerk tisto at plone.org
Mon Dec 1 14:23:06 UTC 2014


Am 01.12.2014 um 13:55 schrieb Johannes Raggam:
> The decision was made because we don't want to have Plone 5 beta further
> delayed and some were opting for a feature freeze.

As far as I know we already declared a feature freeze quite some time
ago. Eric confirmed that during the last FWT meeting, right?

> The changes in PLIP
> 20144 might be small and the positive impact big, but there could be
> some negative impact: UI wise (although the default behavior isn't
> changed),

Which is also one major point why I'm -1. We are making a small change,
that is inconsistent (some objects will be folderish, others are not),
just to somehow get closer to the "real" goal (all objects folderish,
also fundamental UI changes).

Dylan investigated the possibilities to move the 100% to folderish types
option and the last thing that I heard was that there are some serious
UI problems that can not be solved easily. Before we move into that
direction, we should think carefully about where we are heading before
we start with the implementation and moving things into the core.

Also we are going to confuse developers by introducing another way of
doing things and changing one of basic principles of Plone development
(that a folderish object is a container that implements IFolderish). If
we are serious about making Plone development easier, we have to remove
inconsistencies, not introducing more of them.

In addition, we already have at least three versions of p.a.contenttypes
that we need to support. Do you really want to add and maintain a fourth
and fifth version in parallel?

> performance wise (you already proofed, that tests run the same
> speed with or without folderish base types) or memory wise.

Measuring test execution time does not prove at all that there are no
performance impacts.

> Chances are, that beta is delayed anyways. IMO we could discuss this
> again at the meeting next week.
>
> I want to invite you for the FWT meeting on 2014-12-09, 21:00 CET to
> explain your standpoint.
> 
> FWT, Everyone OK with that?

I don't see how that would change our decision from the last meeting. I
would really like us to focus on getting Plone 5 out of the door (going
through the blockers, discussing how we can speed up things, etc.).

Timo


More information about the Framework-Team mailing list