Michael Wechner wrote:
Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Hi Lenya devs,
after countless workarounds and lots of outbursts of fury I have now
changed the persistence layer so that documents are stored without
extension:
foo/index
foo/index.meta
instead of
foo/index.xml
I think this should be decided by the resource itself
That is impossible without fundamental changes to the architecture
which I would object.
The document is identified by document ID and language. These two
bits of information are used to find the meta data. From the meta
data, the resource type can be determined.
With the current architecture, the meta data are attached to
the document source - i.e., the document source has to be known
to get the meta data. That's why the extension can not be part of
the document source. There were various complex and risky
workarounds in the code to make it work with source extensions.
The only reasonable way for the moment was to remove the extension
from the source.
We already agreed that we want to identify documents using UUIDs,
so the next step would be to remove the hierarchy from the storage
structure, e.g.:
content/<area>/<uuid>_<language>
[...]
Sorry for the inconvenience,
well, can't we discuss these things before we just go ahead?!
I agree, I should have discussed these changes before.
It's not about inconvenience but rather about *ignoring* other people's
opinion completely ...
Yes, in this case I ignored your opinion, and I apologize for that.
My mistake was that, in this moment, I was driven by my ambition
and valued code higher than community.
I think it's very wrong that Lenya forces people to adapt a certain path
structure and the reason I think this is completely wrong is because
Lenya is not the only application on this planet handling data.
The preferrable way to deal with this is offer import/export
interfaces.
Various
applications should be able to share data and this means the
applications need to be customizable and not the data.
This means that the applications need interfaces to exchange
data, or that they share their data using a central repository
with a well-defined interface.
In the case of Lenya this doesn't seem to be the case anymore or do I
completely misunderstand something?
Sharing data has to be done through published interfaces, not
on the base of an internal data store. How data are persisted
is a concern of the framework. Of course, it could offer to
implement custom persistence managers, but this would rather
allow flexibility regarding performance than to allow sharing
data.
-- Andreas
--
Andreas Hartmann
Wyona Inc. - Open Source Content Management - Apache Lenya
http://www.wyona.com http://lenya.apache.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
