Re: RFC: Schema Refactoring, first steps

Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Rob Miller wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:24:55 -0400, whit wrote:
>>
>>> I added rocky's requested clarifications. feel free to add language (or
>>> proprosals):
>>>
>>> https://svn.plone.org/svn/archetypes/proposal/schemaproprosal.txt
>> i've read all of this, and, while i agree in general with the design
>> sentiments, i'm not quite convinced that it's the right way to go. 
>> honestly, my thought is that i'm not sure we should be investing this much
>> energy in making AT better.  as you all know from my other posts, i'm
>> strongly in support of making the Z3 stuff and the AT stuff both play
>> together well within the Plone UI and within the same content objects. 
>> but that's specifically so that we can ease the transition off of AT.  i'm
>> quite content to change AT just enough so that we can make this happen
>> smoothly, and i'm suspicious of any major efforts that go toward improving
>> AT rather than toward improving the Z3 story.
> 
> Whilst I agree with this, I think we need to be careful about the 
> proverbial "stop energy". I don't think that's what you're saying here, 
> but if we say "we can't do any innovation in Archetypes", we are cutting 
> off a valuable source of use cases for future work, and we are choking 
> off innovation in the framework that still supports 90% of the solution 
> out there (and on which core Plone depends heavily).
> 
> It's purely a balance thing. For example, I wouldn't accept that we 
> couldn't do the simple schema-by-interface work (which is mostly done, 
> and would be a huge boost to certain use cases where all you want to do 
> is to extend or modify the field of a particular type but keep the rest 
> of its logic in place) if the only reason was "we don't want to spend 
> time on AT" (which again, I don't think is what you're saying). On the 
> other hand, I fully agree that we don't want to fundamentally refactor 
> AT if it means it re-invents many things that already exist in Z3 land.


> The better-interoperbility argument you make is really good (though I 
> can't envisage how it'd work right now), and probably what will allow us 
> to strike that balance in the end. All I'm saying is, let's be pragmatic 
> about what we can achieve with AT in the short term, to the greatest 
> cost-benefit, as well as where want to go in the future.
> 

experiments are the only way to really illuminate whether this is worth 
undertaking.

-w

-- 

  | david "whit" morriss
  |
  | contact :: http://public.xdi.org/=whit

  "If you don't know where you are,
   you don't know anything at all"

   Dr. Edgar Spencer, Ph.D., 1995


  "I like to write code like
  other ppl like to tune their
  cars or 10kW hifi equipment..."

  Christian Heimes, 2004



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642