问题
I find the hardest thing to explain to Plone end users is the concept of having to make a folder, a page and set the folder's default view to a page in order to have nested pages. Is there any reason I shouldn't include a folderish version of a page content type in my product?
回答1:
there are existing products that provide folderish types that almost behave like pages for the end-user
eg. Products.Richdocument and raptus.article.
personally i prefere raptus.article because of it's concept of components. editors can activate carousels, or image galleries and define which of the contained images are displayed in which component. in many project i also define custom components eg one for showing addthis integration under the article text if editors turn on the component.
Ulrich Schwarz is right when commenting that using folderish content types as pages brings in extra complexity when it comes to versioning. the problems in versioning with cmfeditions could most likle be solved by using attributestorage instead of annotationstorage for archetypes fields. (see https://dev.plone.org/ticket/11887)
回答2:
The simplest was is to compare Plone as a filesystem.
There are discussions/rumors about making all content types folderish, but right now I suggest you to to something folderish only when really needed. The UI of a folderish content is more complex
回答3:
Keul is right. Compare Plone as a filesystem.
I think also that you don't always have to set a page as the default view of a folder, sometimes you just want to have a list of contents (files, images, pages, etc...).
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/21136538/is-there-any-reason-i-shouldnt-make-pages-folderish