I guess one of the things that has really bothered me about a bunch of proposals that have been floating around is that they do not acknowledge existing functionality.
We have a lot of existing functionality that has been poorly exploited, but there seems to be widespread misunderstanding of what functionality actually exists.
Just one example:
Feature: Architecture improvements
Skinny-storage
You can add new attributes to any object via the UI.
This isn't an architecture improvement, the object attribute SQL API allows for the addition of new attributes to any object. Has all along. Works fine. Tastes great.
So at most this is a UI improvement. However, beyond that, the CMS UI allows for the addition of new attributes for any objects that happen to be content objects. You may recall we've already approved a TIP for 5.2 to merge content object and "plain" object attributes code, to make the SQL and Tcl API and underlying datamodel the same. Doing so will mean that the attribute addition UI will work for objects of all kinds - though still buried without refactoring in a damned unobvious place, our abandoned CMS.
I noticed a good ten or twelve other examples in the proposals, out of perhaps a couple dozen proposals.
I guess my feeling is that you can't properly discuss where you'd like to go in the future without an accurate assessment of where you are today. Basic navigational concept :)
