Re: Re: Archetypes <-> TICLE

good evening,

if i play customer :)

just one thing on the question AT referencing or not:

- i'd like to bring non-AT-objects in relation to AT-objects.

it's almost the same with the metadata approach:

- CMFMetaData or AT metadata to implement pluggable metadata adapters?

what's your feeling on this?

thanks

jodok

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 devil's
>advocate for edification purposes. I'm just responding to simon's 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/proposal#bottom
>>
>>
>>Archetypes --spamies, Tue, 07 Oct 2003 11:09:05 -0500
>><http://plone.org/development/current/projects/ticle_folder/proposal#msg200310
>>[email protected]>  reply
>><http://plone.org/development/current/projects/ticle_folder/proposal?subject=A
>>rchetypes&amp;in_reply_to=%3C20031007110905-0500%40plone.org%3E#bottom>
>>I also agree basically with that view. But we have some goals that do not
>>match the way that the Archetypes.ReferenceEngine?
>><http://plone.org/development/current/projects/ticle_folder/proposal/editform?
>>page=ReferenceEngine>  is going:
>>* TICLE should deal with 1.000.000 objects and more - I do not think 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 other
>reference machinery archetypes cvs.
>
>  
>
>>* The Archetype relations are not objects - that makes it difficult 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 they can.
>See plonecollectorng for example of this. Or look at archetypes cvs where
>they are explictly relation objects now.
>
>Well that¹s the whole point of basing on archetypes, extending the 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 are very
>>plonish 
>>Our approach: 
>>* Implement that engine without using Zope Core Classes (only ZODB 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 that
>>wonderful Product. Perhaps we can map the ReferenceEngine?
>><http://plone.org/development/current/projects/ticle_folder/proposal/editform?
>>page=ReferenceEngine>  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 see much
>point to gluing archetypes, as that¹s 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 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 other
>things.
> 
>Browsing through the archives I see mention of lots of items relating to
>metadata, metadata harvesting, topic maps, rdf. Can the relation of these
>technologies to ticle be more explictly defined with reference to its goals?
>For example, Is rdf schema something that¹s core, or is rdf export the
>functional intersection of these terms.
>
>From what I can make of it, ticle is trying to provide a content repository
>with rich semantic relations.
>
>Once again, I'm neutral wrt to an archetypes impl... Just thought someone
>should play devil's advocate ;-).
>
>Apologies in advance if this arrives twice, I'm testing the gmane 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
>  
>


-- 
jodok batlogg
solution2u.net gmbh · hof 4 · a-6861 alberschwende
fon +43 5579 85777-65 · fax -77 · mobil +43 699 11841546
http://solution2u.net/ · [email protected]

have a nice day 




-------------------------------------------------------
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/