[PLIP-Advisories] Re: [Plone] #9319: Merging archetypes.fieldtraverser into Product.Archetypes
plip-advisories at lists.plone.org
plip-advisories at lists.plone.org
Tue Jun 30 11:47:58 UTC 2009
#9319: Merging archetypes.fieldtraverser into Product.Archetypes
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Reporter: thet | Owner:
Type: PLIP | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone: 4.0
Component: Archetypes | Resolution:
Keywords: Archetypes, traverse |
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Comment(by raphael):
I'm not sure everybody understands the motivation behind this PLIP. At
least as I understand it the development of archetypes.fieldtraverser has
been initiated by the fact that our current machinery does NOT work for
binary data when using AnnotationStorage (AS). AS on the other hand has
several advantages over todays default (AttributeStorage) like better
performance, lower risk of name clashes, possibility to turn fields into
properties (in the Python sense) etc.
At least for those reasons I'm using archetypes.fieldtraverser today
already myself.
The fact that archetypes.fieldtraverser also adds an expanded convenience
API might come in handy but I'd consider that secondary.
Now, this could continue as an add-on but
(1) it has to monkey patch Archetypes quite a bit and that should be
avoided
(2) it would let us move to AnnotationStorage as default storage for all
field types - and don't tell me Archetypes is going to die any time soon
;-) It's used so much in the wild that it will continue even after Plone
itself moved away from it if only through all those add-ons that will then
pull it in as a dependency.
Therefore, I'm +1 on this PLIP.
--
Ticket URL: <https://dev.plone.org/old/plone/ticket/9319#comment:10>
Plone <http://plone.org>
Plone Content Management System
More information about the PLIP-Advisories
mailing list