On Tuesday 04 June 2002 10:18, Stephan Michels wrote: >. . . > Pro's : > * you will be indepedent from the back-end.
In theory yes. But running the backend in a separate process is also very important IMHO. You won't get JAR or JDK version conflicts with slide or whatever WebDAV backend you're using. Makes the whole thing easier to test too. > > Contra's : > * More overhead, so it will be slower That's the price to pay for modularity and thin interfaces. In my book it's worth it 99% of the time. > * Worry about if you have all possibilities as from a direct access, e.g. > revision control. WebDAV provides DeltaV for this, but I don't know if Slide implements it already. If not, it's always possible to abstract the revision stuff so that it can use DeltaV when available. Same for DASL if it's not available in Slide today. > * Easier to implement And learning to program WebDAV is more "reusable" knowledge than learning the Slide API I think. So I'm all for a WebDAV interface to content stores! -- Bertrand Delacrétaz (codeconsult.ch, jfor.org) buzzwords: XML, java, XSLT, cocoon, mentoring/teaching/coding. disclaimer: eternity is very long. mostly towards the end. get ready. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
