Re: Schema provider/CA lookup status

Roché Compaan wrote:
> 
> An obvious win is that schemas can come from different "providers",
> where providers are anything that returns a schema eg. a Python module,
> ATSENG, another product, etc. You need to code a pretty perfect and very
> accommodating Schema() otherwise. Or maybe you mean that Schema() should
> be extended to accept schemas from different providers? One then has to
> think what mechanism to use to let a particular class now where to get
> its schema. Maybe something similar to how Z3 fields get their default
> widgets?
> 

The point is that requiring people to override Schema() is bad, so if inside
Schema() or instead of using Schema() altogether we did an adapter lookup
(adapt the content object to ISchema or, as I do in 'company', adapt it to
ISchemaExtender and let that extend/modify the schema) then any more
specific registration in the CA from any loaded configure.zcml could be a
provider. ATSENG could (in theory, perish the thought) register itself as
being able to edit any AT type anywhere, for example.

Martin
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Schema-provider-CA-lookup-status-tf1921614.html#a5578980
Sent from the Archetypes - devel forum at Nabble.com.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Archetypes-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/archetypes-devel