making everything folderish?

[vangheem]

Since this will be a major upgrade, what does everyone think about making all types folderish? Or at the very least, making the page type folderish? We could then get rid of the Folder type too.

This is going to be part of a major plone upgrade so IMO it's fine to change the behavior. Then we could finally stop training people on how to create a folder and then set a page inside the folder as the default view of the folder.

[maartenkling]

We always deliver sites using folderishcontenttypes :+1:

[tisto]

We already discussed this (and some other possible enhancements), but so far we decided to just replace the existing AT-based functionality with a dexterity based version, nothing more.

The main reason for that is that we want dexterity default types as soon as possible in Plone and if we start discussing major changes in the way content types work in Plone (making all content types folderish, removing certain content types, etc.) we make it far less likely to get this into Plone soon.

The first step planed (and PLIPed) is to ship p.a.contenttypes as an option and if we do that we don't want the two implementations to differ a lot. This would confuse people and also would make it necessary to adapt the documentation.

I'd be more than happy to discuss those enhancement for Plone 5 and after p.a.contenttypes made it into Plone as an option, but please let's do one step after another.

Of course, if the fwt has other plans we can always adapt our agenda.

[vangheem]

Could we perhaps at least make the types folderish but not allow anything to be added to it OOTB? We just end up creating multiple upgrade steps otherwise. Additionally, it's easy for admins to leverage the advantages of having folderish core types.

[vangheem]

My apologies for bringing up this discussion again though. I'm sure you've all thought about it in great depth. I'll drop it if there is no interest in discussing again.

[tisto]

If that wouldn't change anything in the Plone UI and folderish content types are what we want to have in the future I guess that would be ok. We would still need to write upgrade steps from version 1.0b1 though. We could start with creating a branch with folderish content types...

[vangheem]

Great. I'll make the branch.

[tisto]

@vangheem: there is absolutely no need to apologize! Thanks for bringing this discussion up! Sorry if my initial reply gave you that impression.

I just gave you an update on the discussion that we already had and the reasons why we decided against changing too many things right away. That doesn't mean that our initial thoughts were right or that we can't change our minds at any point.

Please go ahead and feel free to push this further. Once we have the proof-of-concept branch we can discuss this issue with the fwt and decide how to proceed.

[vangheem]

There doesn't seem to be anything to it besides inheriting from Container. Very easy!: https://github.com/plone/plone.app.contenttypes/tree/folderish

The UI seems unaffected but now admins can easily add the ability to make their Page content type folderish by going to portal_types/Document and unchecking "Filter Content Types."

[davisagli]

A few things to check:

• I think plone.app.discussion doesn't support commenting for containers currently.
• Make sure when one of the newly containerish types is set as a default item, it's still possible to access the add menu for its parent somewhere.

[vangheem]

@davisagli Thanks. I believe there's even a ticket trying to mitigate your second point so I'll try and address that.

[tisto]

@davisagli The conversation adapter in p.a.dexterity should support commenting on folderish content types. @vangheem Could you please check if p.a.discussion works? Let me know if there are any problems.

[thet]

@tisto @davisagli i enabled discussions on folderishtypes here (by overriding the conversation view adapter): https://github.com/collective/collective.folderishtypes/blob/master/collective/folderishtypes/browser/adapters.py

[tisto]

@thet As said before, that shouldn't be necessary any longer (at least not for Plone 4.3.x) because there is a conversation adapter for dexterity in p.a.discussion (>2.2.0) now:

https://github.com/plone/plone.app.discussion/blob/master/plone/app/discussion/browser/conversation.py#L110

[thet]

@tisto ah, nice!

[pbauer]

We had a long discussion about folderish types and Rob sent a mockup to the Plone-UI mailinglist where this is discussed now: http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/plone-ui/2013-October/thread.html#3002

[bogdangi]

Here is migration helpers to easy allow update base class

[pbauer]

The pull-request https://github.com/plone/plone.app.contenttypes/pull/187 now has optional folderish types (in the profile 'folderish') and a migration-form that also works with all DX-types where the base-class changed. I will merge this and leave folderish types optional for now unless someone raises objections. Folderish types are still optional but now we could easily write a upgrade-step that changes all existing instances to folderish types.

[pbauer]

I created a PLIP for folderish types: https://dev.plone.org/ticket/20144

[jensens]

close, volto did this finally