[Framework-Team] Re: comments on plip187: WebDAV
Hi Raphael, While the points you raised are valid, I don't see anything that disqualifies this PLIP. More below. Your points will certainly be considered for possible improvements after the PLIP is merged. In fact, some of them are already on my TODO. On Feb 18, 2008 5:09 AM, Raphael Ritz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, here my current take on this PLIP: tested on Linux/Ubuntu 7.10 with Nautilus and Cadaver as WebDAV clients. First, my overall impression: I'm somewhat at a loss here as I don't know what to expect and therefore I don't know what to recommend. :-( While all changes introduced are worthwhile improvements (and could go into Plone core as far as I can see) I'm hesitant calling this Working Out-of-the-box WebDAV I think my problem is: what does working WebDAV mean? Examples: (i) Binary fields: when editing a News Item via webdav I don't see how I could manage the image that can be included with an item (nor its caption) That wasn't a stated goal of this PLIP. (ii) Folders: When copying over (downloading) the default news folder I get a series of error messages from the aggregator topic's criteria (not too surprising) but no news items at all (and of course I've created a few in there before). More generally, folderish items seem to be problematic still. The 'news folder' is not a folder, is a 'smart folder'. It does (should?) not contain files, but basically presents a search result. As such, it is hard to decide what should happen there, and I'm open for suggestions. We could either: - Display the 'contents' of a 'smart folder' and allow for downloading them. The problem might be that since they are not directly contained inside that 'smart folder', maybe some WebDAV clients will complain that the URLs for those items are not 'contained in' the parent. - Serialize the criteria for the 'smart folder', and display it as non-folderish. Another issue is, when you upload a file to a 'smart folder', where should this file end up? (iii) Extensibility: all marshallers don't seem to delegate the serialization of field values to the fields but rather apply some heuristics to the value. While the current implementations work for field types shipped with AT it is limiting when it comes to supporting custom field/data types. (e.g., my Record- and RecordsField (dict and list of dict types) are not treated correctly neither can I easily hook in my own serializations. I guess other complex field types like the ArrayField, the DataGridField, the CompoundField, etc. might have the same problem.) I did not design the marshalling layer on AT, though I contributed many improvements to it. It is completely possible to create a marshaller that delegates to each field. I don't see how your comment qualifies here though, as we don't ship Plone with any of those different kinds of fields. Moreover, my view (and certainly Alex's) on Working out-of-the-box WebDAV is: you drag a file in, and you get a file (preferably the same file) out. The previous status-quo, which *tried* to serialize each field individually could be interesting to geeky types who know what they are doing, but is totally useless as there are no known editors (other than text editors) that could edit those files. Recommendation: as I think any improvements on the WebDAV side are worth it I'm generally positive but I would be hesitant advertising it too boldly (WebDAV is maybe just too broken in general?). It is certainly not too broken, and it's a great improvement over what we had before. We can incrementally improve on what we have on this PLIP. Going from 100% broken to 100% working is not a trivial task that can be achieved in one release cycle. -- Sidnei da Silva Enfold Systemshttp://enfoldsystems.com Fax +1 832 201 8856 Office +1 713 942 2377 Ext 214 ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: comments on plip187: WebDAV
On Feb 18, 2008 11:27 AM, Raphael Ritz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Sidnei, first of all thanks for your prompt reply! Thank you for reviewing! (ii) Folders: When copying over (downloading) the default news folder I get a series of error messages from the aggregator topic's criteria (not too surprising) but no news items at all (and of course I've created a few in there before). More generally, folderish items seem to be problematic still. The 'news folder' is not a folder, is a 'smart folder'. It does (should?) not contain files, but basically presents a search result. As such, it is hard to decide what should happen there, and I'm open for suggestions. No, it's a bit trickier than that: In current Plone 3 the news folder is an ATBTreeFolder which contains a topic as default view. It is perfectly fine (and actually supported through the default Plone UI) to add news items to this folder. The problem I was having is that when trying to download the *folder* I didn't get the news items contained in there probably because of the errors triggered by the contained topic. See what mean now? I see. I am aware of that issue and intend to fix it very soon. We could either: - Display the 'contents' of a 'smart folder' and allow for downloading them. The problem might be that since they are not directly contained inside that 'smart folder', maybe some WebDAV clients will complain that the URLs for those items are not 'contained in' the parent. - Serialize the criteria for the 'smart folder', and display it as non-folderish. that seems to make most sense to me at the moment That == ? Another issue is, when you upload a file to a 'smart folder', where should this file end up? I'm not sure we should even try this. Why not? (iii) Extensibility: all marshallers don't seem to delegate the serialization of field values to the fields but rather apply some heuristics to the value. While the current implementations work for field types shipped with AT it is limiting when it comes to supporting custom field/data types. (e.g., my Record- and RecordsField (dict and list of dict types) are not treated correctly neither can I easily hook in my own serializations. I guess other complex field types like the ArrayField, the DataGridField, the CompoundField, etc. might have the same problem. I did not design the marshalling layer on AT, though I contributed many improvements to it. It is completely possible to create a marshaller that delegates to each field. That's kind of the point I was trying to make: it would certainly be possible (and not that hard even). But would it be desirable to have this as default, since there is no known editor that could edit whatever comes out of this? I don't think so. I also think that's not what you're advocating, but it's better to clarify. I don't see how your comment qualifies here though, as we don't ship Plone with any of those different kinds of fields. While you are right in the strict sense I do propose to take a broader look at this. And from my perspective things could be better here. People often don't draw the fine line between Plone the product (as it comes OOTB) and Plone the platform/framework/whatever you call it. My experience is that people do not care about WebDAV in general, and once they care they can easily create such a marshaller if they want to. The goal I have though is to have what ships with Plone be in a working state, no more no less. Moreover, my view (and certainly Alex's) on Working out-of-the-box WebDAV I guess this is what I'm most worried about: Calling this Working out-of-the-box WebDAV Maybe I'm the only one who has these strange expectations but for issues like the ones mentioned above I feel uncomfortable with advertising it as such. I understand your concern, and I hope to be able to address the issue with smart folders before the final 3.1 comes out, but after the PLIP has been merged. We can incrementally improve on what we have on this PLIP. Going from 100% broken to 100% working is not a trivial task that can be achieved in one release cycle. Absolutely, and again I'm mostly worried about raising too high expectations where we aren't fully up to (yet) in order to avoid unnecessary frustration by those who might expect too much then. I think we are already setting too high expectations, as Plone is advertising WebDAV on the front page: Plays Well with Others LDAP, SQL, SOAP, Web Services (WSDL) and WebDAV — Plone works with them all. So any improvement here is welcome. -- Sidnei da Silva Enfold Systemshttp://enfoldsystems.com Fax +1 832 201 8856 Office +1 713 942 2377 Ext 214 ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: comments on plip187: WebDAV
Sidnei da Silva wrote: Hi Raphael, Hi Sidnei, first of all thanks for your prompt reply! While the points you raised are valid, I don't see anything that disqualifies this PLIP. More below. I'm also going to comment inline below ... Your points will certainly be considered for possible improvements after the PLIP is merged. In fact, some of them are already on my TODO. On Feb 18, 2008 5:09 AM, Raphael Ritz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, here my current take on this PLIP: tested on Linux/Ubuntu 7.10 with Nautilus and Cadaver as WebDAV clients. First, my overall impression: I'm somewhat at a loss here as I don't know what to expect and therefore I don't know what to recommend. :-( While all changes introduced are worthwhile improvements (and could go into Plone core as far as I can see) I'm hesitant calling this Working Out-of-the-box WebDAV I think my problem is: what does working WebDAV mean? Examples: (i) Binary fields: when editing a News Item via webdav I don't see how I could manage the image that can be included with an item (nor its caption) That wasn't a stated goal of this PLIP. OK, fair enough. (ii) Folders: When copying over (downloading) the default news folder I get a series of error messages from the aggregator topic's criteria (not too surprising) but no news items at all (and of course I've created a few in there before). More generally, folderish items seem to be problematic still. The 'news folder' is not a folder, is a 'smart folder'. It does (should?) not contain files, but basically presents a search result. As such, it is hard to decide what should happen there, and I'm open for suggestions. No, it's a bit trickier than that: In current Plone 3 the news folder is an ATBTreeFolder which contains a topic as default view. It is perfectly fine (and actually supported through the default Plone UI) to add news items to this folder. The problem I was having is that when trying to download the *folder* I didn't get the news items contained in there probably because of the errors triggered by the contained topic. See what mean now? We could either: - Display the 'contents' of a 'smart folder' and allow for downloading them. The problem might be that since they are not directly contained inside that 'smart folder', maybe some WebDAV clients will complain that the URLs for those items are not 'contained in' the parent. - Serialize the criteria for the 'smart folder', and display it as non-folderish. that seems to make most sense to me at the moment Another issue is, when you upload a file to a 'smart folder', where should this file end up? I'm not sure we should even try this. (iii) Extensibility: all marshallers don't seem to delegate the serialization of field values to the fields but rather apply some heuristics to the value. While the current implementations work for field types shipped with AT it is limiting when it comes to supporting custom field/data types. (e.g., my Record- and RecordsField (dict and list of dict types) are not treated correctly neither can I easily hook in my own serializations. I guess other complex field types like the ArrayField, the DataGridField, the CompoundField, etc. might have the same problem.) I did not design the marshalling layer on AT, though I contributed many improvements to it. It is completely possible to create a marshaller that delegates to each field. That's kind of the point I was trying to make: it would certainly be possible (and not that hard even). I don't see how your comment qualifies here though, as we don't ship Plone with any of those different kinds of fields. While you are right in the strict sense I do propose to take a broader look at this. And from my perspective things could be better here. People often don't draw the fine line between Plone the product (as it comes OOTB) and Plone the platform/framework/whatever you call it. Moreover, my view (and certainly Alex's) on Working out-of-the-box WebDAV I guess this is what I'm most worried about: Calling this Working out-of-the-box WebDAV Maybe I'm the only one who has these strange expectations but for issues like the ones mentioned above I feel uncomfortable with advertising it as such. is: you drag a file in, and you get a file (preferably the same file) out. The previous status-quo, which *tried* to serialize each field individually could be interesting to geeky types who know what they are doing, but is totally useless as there are no known editors (other than text editors) that could edit those files. Recommendation: as I think any improvements on the WebDAV side are worth it I'm generally positive but I would be hesitant advertising it too boldly (WebDAV is maybe just too broken in general?). It is certainly not too broken, OK, maybe my expectations are somewhat broken then. and it's a great improvement over what we had before. Didn't I say so as well
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: comments on plip187: WebDAV
On 18 feb 2008, at 15:42, Sidnei da Silva wrote: We could either: - Display the 'contents' of a 'smart folder' and allow for downloading them. The problem might be that since they are not directly contained inside that 'smart folder', maybe some WebDAV clients will complain that the URLs for those items are not 'contained in' the parent. - Serialize the criteria for the 'smart folder', and display it as non-folderish. that seems to make most sense to me at the moment That == ? Can't you expose smart folders as read only folders? So you can drag things out of it but nothing into it? That is what I would expect. In fact, if I make a smart folder in Mac OS Finder, afaik I can not add anything to it but I can drag files out of it. Another issue is, when you upload a file to a 'smart folder', where should this file end up? I'm not sure we should even try this. Why not? My suggestion solves that part :) Danny Bloemendaal. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
