[Framework-Team] PLIP 20144

Tue Dec 9 10:16:06 UTC 2014

Sorry, I can't join you beards tonight because I give a Plone Coding Dojo at the python-usergroup :)

I'm absolutely ok with waiting until 5.1 to go fully-folderish if you think it is to risky now. A feature-freeze is also be a really good reason not to add any new features. 

Anyway I added information on speed and weight to https://dev.plone.org/ticket/20144. The short version: No problem.

If we don't go there now I'm still much in favor of keeping a optional folderish profile in the package (instead of pointing developers to collective.folderishtypes) because this way I can add a easy upgrade-step that migrates the from the folderish profile types to the default-types in p.a.c. once they are folderish without having to uninstall a package. 

The IFolderish-query problem that Jens raised might be a real problem. Although querying for IFolderish is actually wrong, instead you should query for is_folderish which respects INonStructuralFolder. Adding INonStructuralFolder to items depending on filter_content_types and allowed_content_types might be possible. We'd also have to reindex is_folderish on changing these two settings.

UX-Problems 'only' arise when people stop using folders and instead only use documents. Dylan has a point there:
1. You can no longer have Portlets only on the "frontpage" of a folder. Dylan is right in that we need a feature in portlets that allows portlets to be only registered to an item but not it's children.

2. Same goes for sharing: You can only delegate permissions for the objects and its children, not only the object

3. Default-pages: Folderish types that you can add content to cannot be made into default pages. This can for only be overridden by adding types to the setting default_page_types in site_properties.

@Timo: Why do we have three version of p.a.c that we support? As far as I can see we only have one. Do you mean ATContentTypes? 

If I may be so bold to annoy you with my take on three more subjects:

1. Tests: I realized that most test do not use the dexterity types at all. It might be that we miss some problems because of that. I changed the tests for plone.app.contentmenu to test both AT and DX (https://github.com/plone/plone.app.contentmenu/pull/8) but the test-setup is a little cumbersome. We need a canonical test-setup to test both frameworks otherwise all packages do it differently and future developers will a good reason to hate us. 

2. Did you talk about deprecating AT-types? Editing AT-types is semi-broken in the current coredev (I guess only a js-problems). I am also working on small changes to ATContentTypes that will allow add-ons (PloneFormGen!) that depend on parts of ATContentTypes to work without uninstalling the types from p.a.c by depending on a new profile "base": https://github.com/starzel/Products.ATContentTypes/commit/1c4aff0c57ff8ea2b0001b44d78f08f9083b0a8f

3. https://pypi.python.org/pypi/bobtemplates.plone might become the new canonical tool for creating new eggs and I'd love to see it included in the Plone 5 installers. Would the framework-team have an issue with that? 

Have a great meeting!
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

Am 09.12.2014 um 10:22 schrieb Johannes Raggam <raggam-nl at adm.at>:

> hi,
> 
> just to be prepared: are you joining our FWT meeting today at 21:00 CET?
> 
> 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
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/plone-framework-team/attachments/20141209/9cdadb3a/attachment.asc>