Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 10 Sep 2006, at 14:53, Rocky Burt wrote:
This sounds fine, but we'd probably want to wait until we have a CMF
version that does require 2.10, right? HEAD says Zope >= 2.9. Unless
we want to work with indirections that know how to do the right thing.
I guess as far as the Plone community is concerned having CMF 2.1
require Zope 2.10 would be no problem since the next release of Plone
will require Zope 2.10. Of course I'm not going to be naive enough to
think just because it's ok for the Plone community it's good enough for
all other CMF consumers :)
Just out of curiosity, which dependencies does Plone 3.0 have that
require Zope 2.10? Or was it some papal edict to use 2.10?
2.10 really is lovely, because Zope 3.3 is lovely. :)
The local components story is much, much better. Look at Hanno's
GSLocalAddOns package (which really should move to CMFCore once CMFCore
is happy to require 2.10+), or other examples. Basically, it solves a
lot of the problems we had with 2.9 and earlier in that it was hard to
make things installable into a CMF site - a global utility or adapter
was an either-or proposition for all sites in a Zope instance.
Being able to use local adapters (and local event handlers) is also very
useful.
Plus, the whole story around formlib, zope.contentprovider, zope.viewlet
is improved, (these three tools are great - if you haven't played with
them, go read the doctests, or Rocky's formlib tutorial on plone.org)
and Five has caught up to these to make them accessible to us.
Martin
_______________________________________________
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
