Hey, that was supposed to go to the dev list!
Guess I need to look at the reply-to field
Here it is again...

On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 11:10 AM, David Sean Taylor wrote:


On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 09:54 AM, Luta, Raphael (VUN) wrote:



[ moved to dev and renamed given the current content of the thread ] For mt PSML stuff in JS2, I've currently broken down the persistence options like this: - PageManagerService:

Function:
Handles page persistence (ie loading and saving pages and fragments to
storage as well as creating new pages and fragments)


  Implementation:
  I have 2 implementations in the works:
    - XML/Castor, with XML files on disk (complete, I just need to
      stop answering mails and write the related unit test files :)
    - OJB based (through the persistence plug-in) (in progress, 80%
      complete)

Do you mind if we look at this from the database table view?
I know its a implementation detail, but Im interested in the database end of things, so if you don't mind


Have you had a look at the DDL in the CVS?
see create-db-phase2.sql
The DDL does not have blobs.
I was hoping that the database impl would not make use of blobs...

I see the service as storing something like the PSML_ENTRY table (see the phase2 sql file)

  For the XML files, the default service implementation just write
  files in a flat directory, with files identified by an id (this
  is different from JS1 behavior).

  Typical directory layout would be:
  /WEB-INF/pages/
                pageID1.psml
                pageID2.psml
                pageID3.psml
                ...
                pageIDX.psml

- PageRegistryService

Function:
Register available portal pages and map these pages to user and role
profiles. The API of this service will be an extension of the default
Registry service



I see this service as storing the equivalent of the PSML table in the above sql fle


  Implementation:
  Again 2 implementations possible:
  - XML/Castor based on the current JS1 registry code (70% complete)
  - OJB/Persistence plug-in like the new PortletRegsitry written by
    Scott (0% complete)

   With XML implementation, information is stored in one or several
   xreg files in /WEB-INF/conf by default.

Example of page registry entries:

   // default anonymous page for html markup
   <page-entry default="true">
     <media-type ref="html"/>
     <page ref="pageID1"/>
   </page-entry>

   // default page for any logged-in user
  <page-entry name="home" user="*" default="true">
     <meta-info>
       <title>My Portal Home</title>
       <descritpion>User Home page</description>
     </meta-info>
     <page ref="pageID2.psml"/>
  </page-entry>

   // secondary page for any logged-in user
  <page-entry name="news" user="*">
     <meta-info>
       <title>My News Page</title>
       <descritpion>User specific news page</description>
     </meta-info>
     <page ref="pageID3.psml"/>
  </page-entry>

   // custom news page for user raphael
  <page-entry name="news" user="raphael">
     <meta-info>
       <title>My News Page</title>
       <descritpion>User specific news page</description>
     </meta-info>
     <page ref="pageID4.psml"/>
  </page-entry>

  // default news page for role admin, note that
  // it can be the same ID that as above
  <page-entry name="news" role="admin">
     <meta-info>
       <title>My News Page</title>
       <descritpion>Role specific news page</description>
     </meta-info>
     <page ref="pageID4.psml"/>
  </page-entry>

This setup should IMO be both more efficient in the XML and
SQL persistent mode because of the flatter structure and be
more flexible because the PageRegistry allows a central page
repository and some user->page mappings that were not possible
in JS1, including the ability to "off-line" a page without
removing it physically.

For the file-based system, I see the big difference in that the PSML is not stored in a directory tree.
All PSML is stored in one flat directory area, and a new XML file makes the mapping.
I guess Im not too concerned, since I prefer to store in the DB.
But it just makes me wonder about two things:
1. migration. people are used to the directory layout
2. Is this going to overly complicate the simple deployments


I see the file-based solution best for users who need a simple portal that is easy to configure.
The directory layout was very easy to understand.


--
David Sean Taylor
Bluesunrise Software
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+01 707 773-4646
+01 707 529 9194




--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




-- David Sean Taylor Bluesunrise Software [EMAIL PROTECTED] +01 707 773-4646 +01 707 529 9194




--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to