[Framework-Team] PLIP 20144

Timo Stollenwerk tisto at plone.org
Mon Dec 1 14:34:04 UTC 2014

Dylan wrote (https://dev.plone.org/ticket/20144#comment:12):

"You need to read what I wrote more carefully. I'm not going to explain
them a third time. There are UX bugs with this current proposal that
will need to be addressed to prevent confusion when using sharing,
portlets and navigation titles. There is no point introducing a feature
if it makes the product more complicated. Please refer to recent UI team
discussion on this PLIP."

As I said before on the FWT meeting. I'm not opposed at all to the idea
of having everything folderish. Though, the discussion is not new and I
don't think we are not going to solve a debate that has been around for
year in the last minutes before a major release.

BTW: Did we assign a FWT member for an initial review of the PLIP?


Am 01.12.2014 um 14:10 schrieb Jens W. Klein:
> Hi,
> +1 for inviting Philip to the FWT meeting to discuss this topic.
> I agree we have lots of advantages.
> What I kept in mind from our discussion is one major risk: Third party
> code depending on IFolderish queries will break, because theres no
> difference any more.
> We need to have a clear way to check if something is a container by
> intend or just because its a folderish type (which is not used as
> folderish, just prepared to be used this way).
> For more see also the FWT protocol posted earlier on this list.
> greets Jens
> On 2014-12-01 13:55, Johannes Raggam wrote:
>> The decision was made because we don't want to have Plone 5 beta further
>> delayed and some were opting for a feature freeze. 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), performance wise (you already proofed, that tests run the same
>> speed with or without folderish base types) or memory wise.
>> 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?
>> Best, Johannes
>> On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 13:13 +0100, Philip Bauer wrote:
>>> Dear Framework-team,
>>> I got the message that https://dev.plone.org/ticket/20144 should be
>>> moved to 5.1, which is generally ok by me but I can't help wondering
>>> why.
>>> The implementation, upgrade-steps and tests are all done. Working
>>> with folderish dexterity-types in real projects has been tested by
>>> many developers for quite some time. What do you think needs more
>>> work or improvements for it to be included in Plone 5? I even
>>> migrated the test for plone.app.contentmenu
>>> (https://github.com/plone/plone.app.contentmenu/pull/8) to work with
>>> AT and DX to make sure nothing changes regarding the UI.
>>> I'm more than willing to put in more time if it means having this in
>>> Plone 5.0 and not 5.1 (which will be at least a year form now). I
>>> think the point when we move from AT to DX is also the right moment
>>> to switch from itemish to folderish.
>>> Also: If the -1 stands: You did not answer the question about the
>>> alternative folderish profile.
>>> Philip
>>> -- 
>>> Starzel.de
>>> Philip Bauer
>>> Adlzreiterstr. 35
>>> 80337 München
>>> Tel: 089 - 189 29 533
>>> Fax: 089 - 189 29 535
>>> bauer at starzel.de
>>> www.starzel.de
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Framework-Team mailing list
>>> Framework-Team at lists.plone.org
>>> https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plone-framework-team

More information about the Framework-Team mailing list