Forgot your password?
New user?
Document Actions
#214: Merge of CMFPlacefulWorkflow into CMFPlone/WorkflowTool
- Contents
Merging CMFPlacefulWorkflow in the Plone Workflow tool
- Proposed by
- Encolpe Degoute
- Proposal type
- Architecture
- State
- being-discussed
Definitions
Motivation
CMFPlacefulWorkflow is now mature enough to be merge into the workflow tool:
- since two major version there's no critical bug on it
- GenericSetup support is implemented in the trunk
- let him outside the workflow tool would leave 2 more monkey patches in Plone bundle
- all page templates can be merged into a plone_workflow skin with the #210
Assumptions
Proposal
Merge the two monkey patches into CMFPlone/WorkflowTool.py. It was done in an early version of Plone 3.0 before the bug of getUtility vs getToolByName.
Implementation
Deliverables
Risks
Progress log
Participants
Encolpe Degoute
Gregory Boyington
Framework team vote
Posted by
Raphael Ritz
at
December 20, 2007 - 13:52
-1 given the current state of discussion. Might be good for consideration in 4.0 though.
Framework vote
Posted by
Martijn Pieters
at
December 21, 2007 - 17:08
-1 due to Alec's better alternative
More explainations
Posted by
Encolpe Degoute
at
December 23, 2007 - 18:23
Alec's plip is note an alternative it's an extension !
I explained this point on the list.
To manage users we need groups to be more efficient, but to manage workflows you want remove groups to manage them only one by one !
A group is a strategy applied on some users.
A workflow policy applied on a folder is a strategy applied on some types.
I explained this point on the list.
To manage users we need groups to be more efficient, but to manage workflows you want remove groups to manage them only one by one !
A group is a strategy applied on some users.
A workflow policy applied on a folder is a strategy applied on some types.
more explanation.. bad code
Posted by
Kapil Thangavelu
at
January 3, 2008 - 17:46
cmf placeful workflow should be structured as an adapter extension to plip 217 not the other way around.
as it is.. cmfplacefulworkflow confounds policy, ui, and persistent configuraation with infrastructure, which is great for an end user, but sucks if you don't want to go through persistent configuration gymanstics to do what you want it to do, even if thats even if possible. ie. i want to apply an interface to content and a different workflow.. ie with plone.subtyper or in conjunction with content rules.
as it is because cmfplacefulworkflow is a separate product its easy to see and replace its integration points/monkey patches with something better, putting in the core just makes it that much harder to figure out where its doing its magic, when you need something better. plip 217 is something better, its much more flexible, simpler, and supports alot more use cases with alot less code.
-1
as it is.. cmfplacefulworkflow confounds policy, ui, and persistent configuraation with infrastructure, which is great for an end user, but sucks if you don't want to go through persistent configuration gymanstics to do what you want it to do, even if thats even if possible. ie. i want to apply an interface to content and a different workflow.. ie with plone.subtyper or in conjunction with content rules.
as it is because cmfplacefulworkflow is a separate product its easy to see and replace its integration points/monkey patches with something better, putting in the core just makes it that much harder to figure out where its doing its magic, when you need something better. plip 217 is something better, its much more flexible, simpler, and supports alot more use cases with alot less code.
-1
Framework team vote