Re: Re: Archetypes <-> TICLE

Just to play the research assistant to the advocate for the devil :^) =20=

... I'm also more interested in advancing an existing reference engine. =20=

  I don't view "Must work without Zope" as an important goal.  For =20
placeless efforts that I'm involved in, Archetypes will likely be the =20=

starting point.

--Paul

On Nov 24, 2003, at 8:28 AM, Kapil Thangavelu wrote:

>
> This is the why not base on archetypes discussion. I've looked over =
the
> source code, and i'm neutral on the matter, but I do want to play =20
> devil's
> advocate for edification purposes. I'm just responding to simon's =20
> reply see
> the wiki page for the original strongly worded suggestions.
>
>
> On 10/7/03 8:07 AM, in article =
[email protected],
> "Simon Pamies" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> (taken from plone.org)
>> some interesting comments from:
>>
>> http://plone.org/development/current/projects/ticle_folder/=20
>> proposal#bottom
>>
>>
>> Archetypes --spamies, Tue, 07 Oct 2003 11:09:05 -0500
>> <http://plone.org/development/current/projects/ticle_folder/=20
>> proposal#msg200310
>> [email protected]>  reply
>> <http://plone.org/development/current/projects/ticle_folder/proposal?=20=

>> subject=3DA
>> rchetypes&amp;in_reply_to=3D%3C20031007110905=20
>> -0500%40plone.org%3E#bottom>
>> I also agree basically with that view. But we have some goals that do =
=20
>> not
>> match the way that the Archetypes.ReferenceEngine?
>> <http://plone.org/development/current/projects/ticle_folder/proposal/=20=

>> editform?
>> page=3DReferenceEngine>  is going:
>> * TICLE should deal with 1.000.000 objects and more - I do not think =20=

>> that the
>> Archetypes engine can do that
>
> Why not? What makes it unable to scale to these dimensions?
>
>> * The UID engine do not follow any standards - some of the developers
>> supporting TICLE absolutely want that feature
>
> This is trivial to alter, ben has already done some work on this and =20=

> other
> reference machinery archetypes cvs.
>
>> * The Archetype relations are not objects - that makes it difficult =20=

>> to add
>> clean m:n relations or even metadata on objects
>
> I'm not sure what makes you think that can't be objects... Because =20
> they can.
> See plonecollectorng for example of this. Or look at archetypes cvs =20=

> where
> they are explictly relation objects now.
>
> Well that=92s the whole point of basing on archetypes, extending the =20=

> existing
> functionality of the archetypes reference engine with the higher level
> relation semantics of ticle.
>
>> * The engine itself should be useable without Zope/Plone. Archetypes =20=

>> are very
>> plonish
>> Our approach:
>> * Implement that engine without using Zope Core Classes (only ZODB =20=

>> based)
>
> What benefit is that? I would think that you have to reinvent so much
> infrastructure to make it useful that it seems without much merit?
>
> What sort of features are you planning on a pure zodb level?
>
>
>> * Programming Zope Layer
>> * Programming CMF/Plone Layer that uses Archetypes and perhaps extend =
=20
>> that
>> wonderful Product. Perhaps we can map the ReferenceEngine?
>> <http://plone.org/development/current/projects/ticle_folder/proposal/=20=

>> editform?
>> page=3DReferenceEngine>  methods to the TICLE engine. That will be =
the
>> intergration into the Archetypes Reference Engine..
>
> Well if its not going to be part of the implementation than I don't =20=

> see much
> point to gluing archetypes, as that=92s a low level interface, and the
> interface of interest is the higher level one.
>
> Perhaps you could refine the goal of ticle as stated from the webpage =20=

> below
> to make this zodb/zope api layers more clear.
>
> Ticle deals with the placeless content paradigm, with relations and
> constraints, with links between objects, with RDF and quite a lot of =20=

> other
> things.
>
> Browsing through the archives I see mention of lots of items relating =20=

> to
> metadata, metadata harvesting, topic maps, rdf. Can the relation of =20=

> these
> technologies to ticle be more explictly defined with reference to its =20=

> goals?
> For example, Is rdf schema something that=92s core, or is rdf export =
the
> functional intersection of these terms.
>
> =46rom what I can make of it, ticle is trying to provide a content =20
> repository
> with rich semantic relations.
>
> Once again, I'm neutral wrt to an archetypes impl... Just thought =20
> someone
> should play devil's advocate ;-).
>
> Apologies in advance if this arrives twice, I'm testing the gmane =20
> gateway.
>
> sincerely,
>
> -kapil
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
> Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive?  Does it
> help you create better code?  SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
> YOU!  Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
> _______________________________________________
> Collective-ticle mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/collective-ticle



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive?  Does it
help you create better code?  SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU!  Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/