-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 yuppie wrote:
> Martin Aspeli wrote: > >> The only thing that bothers me is the lack of local skin >> customisations. Does that mean that there is *no* way to e.g. overide >> document_view.pt or whatever else? Or just no TTW way? In fact, I'm -1 >> on releasing with either limitation, but I think having no way of >> doing local skin customisations is a major drawback, and would be >> show-stopper as far as I'm concerned. At least in the Plone sphere, >> skin customisations is generally the first thing people do, and one of >> the things that make them like the stack - how easy it is to make >> UI-level changes (which is all a lot of people want to do). Do I have >> to make a package, with new content type and a pile of ZCML just >> because I want my Description to be at the bottom rather than the top >> of my Document view? That's a fairly drastic reduction in >> functionality and friendliness for the average Joe, don't you think? > > > I agree with your concerns. Views and the FiveActionsTool both use > Five/Zope3 technology for the price of dropping TTW/GenericSetup support > and introducing a second way to do the same things. Hmm, I'm not sure I see how we are trading away GenericSetup support. I was under the FiveActonsTool *supplements* the stock action providers, exposing Zope3 menu items as actions. > While I didn't vote for including the FiveActionsTool into the CMF core > I support the effort to move to views. But we are not there yet and I > doubt we'll have view based skins in CMF 2.0 that can fully replace the > old CMF skins. I imagine that we may be able to ship a separate "Five-aware" setup profile, and allow folks to use it as an alternative. Likely we can configure the views into place in either case, but have the "stock" profile surface the skin methods / templates rather than views. > The TTW features are a strength of the CMF. The fact that Tres and > Phillip plan to sprint on local skin customization for CMF 2.1 is good > news. As I already said in an other mail I would not enable views by > default in CMF 2.0. For now I consider them an experimental feature of > the CMF that advanced users can enable if they want. As soon as > customization and other issues are resolved views should replace the old > skins machinery. In particular, the cost of TTW flexibility is pretty high, both in terms of performance and maintainability. Shipping a version of the CMF which allows folks who *don't* need or want the flexibility to avoid paying those costs will be a win. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDx6Bq+gerLs4ltQ4RAvH3AJ4h2grhCO2XnwHI+VxC6P0OdiBHZACgkkGr eMmldLTpMMcFz6FYlRsGx8U= =jlIv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
