Hi,
I've been following the discussions on both the repository API and the Slide Source and I have a few questions to consider.
The Source IF is an abstraction layer but not a particularly good one in this context.
I agree that the Slide Source should be dropped but I don�t agree that another source is the complete solution.
A source in this context is (in my POV) a data object and you need ways to manipulate data objects in the scope of a transaction, this is not possible with a Source as it stands to day.
I�ve been a part of a project that built a CMS on top of Cocoon (flow), Slide and the *unstable* Slide Source.
The biggest problem with the Source abstraction is the manipulation of properties and content and the lack of transactions spanning over several source actions when doing these manipulations.
Sources were designed for reading information and not for manipulating them.
Naturally one could build something on top of a Source abstraction that encapsulated Source operations within a transaction but what�s the point in that when you could have a repository IF working directly with Slide which supports transactions?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that a WebDAV Source + a Repository IF that doesn�t overlap is what I would have liked if I were to build yet another CMS on top of Cocoon and WebDAV. :)
What you want is a Repository API and a simple way to get stuff out.
That simple way is either a generator or a source. A source helps you in case you want to store, say, a stylesheet into a repository.
A source should be just that "source". The writeable-source concept is flawed now that we have flow.
-- Stefano.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
