RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Kapil Thangavelu wrote: part of the reason i never used ape as a means for svn integration was was that this imo, mix of high level application operations with zodb storage level operations never seemed a proper fit as it required bypassing the storage interface for richer semantic operations. ie i see reverting a revision, tagging a content tree, or diffing mulitiple revisions as application operations. still, there have been the some compelling ideas here about using zodb/ape as an interface. FWIW, Ape is also designed to be useful as an import/export mechanism. In theory, if you set up a mapper configuration for a set of classes, you've gained both a database bridge and a clean format for importing and exporting objects. I imagine that would benefit many kinds of applications. In practice, I haven't tried it yet. :-) should we move this discussion to an ape specific mailing list? I'm happy with zope-dev and zodb-dev, but if there's a good reason to make a new list, that's fine. Shane ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 13:33, Shane Hathaway wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Kapil Thangavelu wrote: should we move this discussion to an ape specific mailing list? I'm happy with zope-dev and zodb-dev, but if there's a good reason to make a new list, that's fine. its a knowledge discovery issue, there's a lot of useful info ape info floating around on diseparate mailing lists which makes it hard to get a hold of, having a single mailing focused on ape would make it much easier for folks to get up to speed and see all the cool stuff that can be done and that people are doing with ape ;-) cheers, -kapil ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 10:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kapil, Right now, the svn transactions are entirely contained within a single fileops operation: for example a mkdir connects to a transaction root, performs the necessary operations, and commits, all in one shot. ok, thats what about what i expected. not ideal but it works. Last night I took some more time to try and learn more about Ape's functionning (Where events come from, which interfaces are used for what, and TPC), so I'm starting to understand more ... The more I learn, the more I think closer integration between SVN txn's and Ape's TPC would be a good place to start before looking at adding features like history support and so on: defining a model for what happens in svn for each TPC related call (connect, vote, finish), and then as Shane had said, look at IFSReader/IFSWriter (Which I now call ISubversionReader/ISubversionWriter :P) to match. part of the reason i never used ape as a means for svn integration was was that this imo, mix of high level application operations with zodb storage level operations never seemed a proper fit as it required bypassing the storage interface for richer semantic operations. ie i see reverting a revision, tagging a content tree, or diffing mulitiple revisions as application operations. still, there have been the some compelling ideas here about using zodb/ape as an interface. Right now the fs implementation stores script commands that are cummulated upon connect() (I think?), validated as best as possible upon vote() and run upon finish(). I don't see why this couldn't be adapted to SVN txn's ... connect() = start a txn, vote() = validation (what this entails needs to be defined, could involve delta operations, revision number matching, etc ... ?), finish() = commit the svn txn. not exactly, you just start a txn, do whatever work, and commit in vote. see my previous message outlining txn integration difficulties, and why this is not ideal but currently the best option. Because we're within an svn transaction, there would be no need for fs style script command accumulation however, which is nice. sure. should we move this discussion to an ape specific mailing list? -kapil ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
its (cmfsvnbrowser) not what your looking for, if you want a versioning system integrated with plone (as i recall your original request) i still think working with zope version control (as i suggested earlier) is more applicable in the short term.. as an integrated example of doing object version control entirely in zope see, http://occams.objectrealms.net -kapil On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 06:36, Arthur Chan Chi Chuen wrote: cool, let me try the cmfsvnbrowser first thanks. =) Arthur On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:35:14 -0400, Jean-Francois.Doyon wrote Well there you go, perfect :) -Original Message- From: Kapil Thangavelu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 14, 2004 6:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?) On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 20:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, Hmmm, well it's as stable as Ape and Subversion are respectively :) I wouldn't call it stable no, it's something I did over the long week-end we just had, and that's about it :) Ape is at 0.8 and therefore becoming quite mature, I'd have to let others speak as to it stability however ... Subversion is also probably quite stable (It just reached 1.0), though I don't know how heavily tested it's been in a long running process (Might it have some memeory leaks ?) ... the svn apache server model is a long running process and is fairly stable on memory usage. the python bindings require doing some manual memory management, but the pool api makes it easy to deallocate arbitrary allocations safely. the cmfsvnbrowser code i ref'd early has been in production by myself and others for almost a year and runs with a stable memory footprint. -kapil ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 19:14, Shane Hathaway wrote: On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My initial, uneducated thoughts on the topic were simplistic, but then I'm a big K.I.S.S. fan: simply pickle the entire object back and forth as one entity. This means for each object, there is one file on the fs. The benefit is greater simplicity ... the downside is that you couldn't check those files out of subversion and interact with them. I also have to imagine the former is faster ? If you store pickles, you can't merge, you can't store properties, in fact you can't even store folders as directories or keep track of references between objects. At that point, you'd do much better to just use FileStorage--KISS, after all. Ape's real utility is in breaking objects apart for storage. If you don't need that, you don't need Ape. But I like to think it makes the job of breaking objects apart for storage relatively simple. But if usnig the latter, then I'd think that in SVN there would be only 1 file, written by a specific mapper for a specific content type, say image. the data written to the file is such that if checked out, the file works, so I can open it in photoshop or something. I however, would simply put everything else in properties, if that makes sense at all. Zope properties, security information, and so on. 1 porperty, 1 piece of data. No need for reading/writing multi-line text. That's fine, although you'll need to distinguish Zope properties from other kinds of properties. For example, if some object has a class_name Zope property, you'd be in trouble if the system mixed that up with the class_name key of the object classification. i don't think needs to much worrying about, just prefix zope properties with 'zope:' much the same way svn does with its properties 'svn:externals' The only thing I'm not so sure about is this remainder ... Though if it really is a base64 encoded string, there's no reason not to put that in a property as well. That's correct, it's always base64 encoded (with some comments.) The benefits I see: - The filesystem reflects the object structure, no extra files lying around. Definitely. - a more consistent way to setup mappers/gateways: there's data, and there's everything else. Have a common/defined/smart way of handling everything else. I would recommend you defer this for a while. Lots objects don't easily fit this model. For example, what is the data of a CMF tool? We can make plenty of progress on Subversion without thinking about changing the way mappers are defined. - with the use of the properties related svn funtions, we better leverage SVN's features. Yup. another thing to keep in mind here, svn is basically a versioned fs, and in addition to node/content history tracking and it has facilities/functions for apply deltas to content, and recieving delta diffs back etc, but these apply to node/content bodies and not to properties. ie. there are no facilties for diffing properties, and this would need to be implemented in python. -kapil ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 10:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The property schema thing is a good point, though I'm not sure we could ever do anything about it, not with the purpose to help naive gui clients work better with the repository. agreed, its not something to worry about, and such naive clients are imo broken. By nature the object structure (Class instance) is not fixed, so the amount/name/data of properties could vary arbitrarily. This is after all the major benefit of an OODBMS. Fact is if one wanted a client to interact with a svn repository that stores zope objects, it would need to be fairly specifically designed for it ... How would a client (Say dreamweavnr with a subversion plug-in) know that when editing an image, the x and y size properties need to be updated ? What if someone monkey patches the image type to add some other property/attribute ? well i think its also useful to think of svn as a sychronization point, like an rdbms. for other processes in other languages to interact with the content, like doing rich transforms/classification based on the content and storing as properties. using proper names for properties i think avoids the issue of dealing with client overlap, i would treat properties as though they were in xml namespaces, ie serialize dublincore author to dc:author, zope localroles - zsecurity:localroles, etc. also its possible for zope to have total awareness of content changes done by external clients ( i depend on this functionality actually to reindex, get notification of deleted, apply wf to added content, etc.) but all of this happens at an application level not the zodb layer. All we could hope to do is find a consistent and predictable way to handle properties, so that clients would know at the very least how to read/write them, but not necessarily know which one does what. I suppose there's possible ways around that actually, by providing some way to describe properties and what they do and so on ... but that's beyond the scope of what I'm trying to do I think ... it is beyond scope, at min it requires a schema set for commonly defined properties which beyond the zope core properties are application specific. i wouldn't worry about to well into the future. -kapil J.F. -Original Message- From: Kapil Thangavelu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 14, 2004 6:51 AM To: Shane Hathaway Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?) On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 22:46, Shane Hathaway wrote: On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the extra tips, I'll check out those interfaces! I'm also getting up to speed on the whole mapper concept, where the work regarding properties handling seems to be ? Ape supports both annotations and Zope properties. Annotations are blocks of multi-line text, while Zope properties are less constrained. On the filesystem, Ape stores many Zope properties together in a single annotation called properties. Other annotations include object classification, the remainder pickle (encoded in base 64), and security information. What are the expectations and limits of Subversion properties? If they are blocks of multi-line text, you can store the annotations as Subversion properties. If not, we'll still need a .properties file. (Note that the name .properties is thus confusing. Oops.) svn supports aribtrary property values. ie you can store binary (remainder pickles, object classification, etc.) of arbitrary size on them. there is some question of how well some naive gui client will do when trying to list such properties, as there is currently no notion of metaproperties/property schema beyond the property namespace for introspection of a property. -kapil ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 00:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, a very good idea indeed! We'll have to look at that eventually. The mechanism you describe is preferable, but it should be noted that subversion properties are easily accessible using the clients. So long as said properties are human readable/writable, that's also an option. The main issue for me (And many others I suppose), is the fact that every single object type I use is either completely custom, or a monkey patched version of a built-in type (Notably OFS.Image for instance). So there would have to be a reliable serializer for other objects, which I beleive you already have, so that's OK :) i dunno if you use or have tried archetypes, but it has experimental support for generating the needed ape structures from its schema.. see archgenxml and archetypes/apesupport.. its pretty cool actually you cane go from a uml model straight to a content model with support. http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/archetypes/Archetypes/ApeSupport.py?rev=1.6view=auto cheers, -kapil ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 19:28, Shane Hathaway wrote: In Subversion, is it possible to read/write a versioned object by unique identifier rather than by path? If so, it's a great blessing and we don't need a transaction script. not really, yes every svn node has an a node id, but there is no way to retrieve a particular node from the svn fs via node id. it is possible to compare to compare and see if their related, (part of the node id is a copy id which gets incremented when a node is copied). in short not really. -kapil ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What happens is you write a new serializer, notably write a custom serializer for an object type you've already been using for a while, using the default one ? (Presumably because you WANT to be able to access the contents from other tools) I think I noticed that somewhere in the .properties file there was a note of the class used for serializing ... Is there a way for a serialized instance to remember which serializer was used ? Or does everything break when I change the definition of a serializer (Old instances can no longer be read) ? Ape has a solution. Every object is stored with a classification. The classification (a dictionary of strings, stored in whatever format is chosen by apeconf.xml) has at least two keys: class_name and mapper_name. The mapper_name tells Ape which mapper was used to store the object, enabling Ape to reliably use the same mapper to load the object later. The class_name is used by mappers that work with multiple classes. When Ape stores a new state for an object previously loaded, it disregards the earlier choice of mapper. So, for example, lets say you've made a class called UltraPageTemplate, which subclasses ZopePageTemplate. If you store that using the default configuration, Ape won't try to guess how you meant to store it and will mostly just pickle it. The mapper_name will be anyfile. Later, you add to apeconf.xml a mapper that specifically serializes UltraPageTemplate objects, using the mapper_name Products.UltraPT.UltraPT.UltraPageTemplate. Ape will continue to load UltraPageTemplates stored using the anyfile mapper because the mapper_name supercedes the class_name when loading. However, when you store new UltraPageTemplates or update existing ones, Ape will use your new mapper, since the old choice of mapper is not consulted at save time. Therefore, to update all existing instances of UltraPageTemplate to use your new mapper, you only need to get ZODB to load all the existing instances and store them again unchanged. If your new mapper is complete, the old pickles will go away and people will be able to edit UltraPageTemplates outside Zope. Using strategies like this, Ape is trying to achieve a mode of development that doesn't require you to decide how to store objects at the same time you write classes. You start with ZODB, a radically simple, unintrusive storage layer, then you customize gradually with Ape. I think Ape is making good progress toward that goal. Shane ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 20:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, Hmmm, well it's as stable as Ape and Subversion are respectively :) I wouldn't call it stable no, it's something I did over the long week-end we just had, and that's about it :) Ape is at 0.8 and therefore becoming quite mature, I'd have to let others speak as to it stability however ... Subversion is also probably quite stable (It just reached 1.0), though I don't know how heavily tested it's been in a long running process (Might it have some memeory leaks ?) ... the svn apache server model is a long running process and is fairly stable on memory usage. the python bindings require doing some manual memory management, but the pool api makes it easy to deallocate arbitrary allocations safely. the cmfsvnbrowser code i ref'd early has been in production by myself and others for almost a year and runs with a stable memory footprint. -kapil ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 22:46, Shane Hathaway wrote: On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the extra tips, I'll check out those interfaces! I'm also getting up to speed on the whole mapper concept, where the work regarding properties handling seems to be ? Ape supports both annotations and Zope properties. Annotations are blocks of multi-line text, while Zope properties are less constrained. On the filesystem, Ape stores many Zope properties together in a single annotation called properties. Other annotations include object classification, the remainder pickle (encoded in base 64), and security information. What are the expectations and limits of Subversion properties? If they are blocks of multi-line text, you can store the annotations as Subversion properties. If not, we'll still need a .properties file. (Note that the name .properties is thus confusing. Oops.) svn supports aribtrary property values. ie you can store binary (remainder pickles, object classification, etc.) of arbitrary size on them. there is some question of how well some naive gui client will do when trying to list such properties, as there is currently no notion of metaproperties/property schema beyond the property namespace for introspection of a property. -kapil ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
Kapil, Right now, the svn transactions are entirely contained within a single fileops operation: for example a mkdir connects to a transaction root, performs the necessary operations, and commits, all in one shot. Last night I took some more time to try and learn more about Ape's functionning (Where events come from, which interfaces are used for what, and TPC), so I'm starting to understand more ... The more I learn, the more I think closer integration between SVN txn's and Ape's TPC would be a good place to start before looking at adding features like history support and so on: defining a model for what happens in svn for each TPC related call (connect, vote, finish), and then as Shane had said, look at IFSReader/IFSWriter (Which I now call ISubversionReader/ISubversionWriter :P) to match. Right now the fs implementation stores script commands that are cummulated upon connect() (I think?), validated as best as possible upon vote() and run upon finish(). I don't see why this couldn't be adapted to SVN txn's ... connect() = start a txn, vote() = validation (what this entails needs to be defined, could involve delta operations, revision number matching, etc ... ?), finish() = commit the svn txn. Because we're within an svn transaction, there would be no need for fs style script command accumulation however, which is nice. J.F. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kapil Thangavelu Sent: April 14, 2004 6:59 AM To: Shane Hathaway Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely revis ion based storage for Zope ?) On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 12:01, Shane Hathaway wrote: On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Kapil Thangavelu wrote: since objects modified in a version are in essence locked from participating in other transactions, actions like modifying content in a version in a cmf site amounts to locking the catalog from changes outside of the version, which amounts to shutting down write activities to a cmf site. This is only true of FileStorage. Some other storage could implement ZODB versions with merging capability rather than locking. good point, just because hasn't been doesn't mean it can't ;-) although i wonder if there is some hand waving in progress here that i can't see. i guess my semantic notion of versions has been that of long lived transactions, and is there a better means of thinking of them? how do they play across with multiple mounted zodbs? what would something like merge mean in the context of a catalog? i'm also curious how you dealt with svn transactions as part of the ape integration work to date. The same way it tries to impose transactions on the filesystem: in the vote phase, Ape looks for possible problems and aborts early if it detects anything that will cause the transaction to fail. Obviously, this provides no guarantee, but covers many cases. i was more curious how jean-francois was doing the svn ops in fileops, as svn is fundamentally a transactional store (as opposed to the fs), ie is there some record boundary notion of ape signalling the end of serialization for an object set, or was each operation being conducted in a separate svn transaction. -kapil ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ) ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
Shane, As Kapil already mentionned, svn's support for properties is quite flexible, so that doesn't worry me too much. I would imagine and administrator having the flexibility of choosing how objects get translateds to files might be handy. My initial, uneducated thoughts on the topic were simplistic, but then I'm a big K.I.S.S. fan: simply pickle the entire object back and forth as one entity. This means for each object, there is one file on the fs. The benefit is greater simplicity ... the downside is that you couldn't check those files out of subversion and interact with them. I also have to imagine the former is faster ? But if usnig the latter, then I'd think that in SVN there would be only 1 file, written by a specific mapper for a specific content type, say image. the data written to the file is such that if checked out, the file works, so I can open it in photoshop or something. I however, would simply put everything else in properties, if that makes sense at all. Zope properties, security information, and so on. 1 porperty, 1 piece of data. No need for reading/writing multi-line text. The only thing I'm not so sure about is this remainder ... Though if it really is a base64 encoded string, there's no reason not to put that in a property as well. The benefits I see: - The filesystem reflects the object structure, no extra files lying around. - a more consistent way to setup mappers/gateways: there's data, and there's everything else. Have a common/defined/smart way of handling everything else. - with the use of the properties related svn funtions, we better leverage SVN's features. - possibly better performance/simpler code by not needing the whole multiple file management and read/write of text files. Heck the whole AnnotatedFileSystem, thing could be dropped/replaced with a PropertyFileSystem implementation of some kind maybe ?? What do you think ? J.F. -Original Message- From: Shane Hathaway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 13, 2004 10:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?) On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the extra tips, I'll check out those interfaces! I'm also getting up to speed on the whole mapper concept, where the work regarding properties handling seems to be ? Ape supports both annotations and Zope properties. Annotations are blocks of multi-line text, while Zope properties are less constrained. On the filesystem, Ape stores many Zope properties together in a single annotation called properties. Other annotations include object classification, the remainder pickle (encoded in base 64), and security information. What are the expectations and limits of Subversion properties? If they are blocks of multi-line text, you can store the annotations as Subversion properties. If not, we'll still need a .properties file. (Note that the name .properties is thus confusing. Oops.) As for the seperation of code ... I now have a subversion directory as a sibbling to fs ... I had to edit a couple of files outside that directory, but still the seperation is nicer. eventually I'd have to make it into a product, is that doable ? Why not add your code to Ape? I think it would be easier for both of us to maintain that way. Shane ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
The property schema thing is a good point, though I'm not sure we could ever do anything about it, not with the purpose to help naive gui clients work better with the repository. By nature the object structure (Class instance) is not fixed, so the amount/name/data of properties could vary arbitrarily. This is after all the major benefit of an OODBMS. Fact is if one wanted a client to interact with a svn repository that stores zope objects, it would need to be fairly specifically designed for it ... How would a client (Say dreamweaver with a subversion plug-in) know that when editing an image, the x and y size properties need to be updated ? What if someone monkey patches the image type to add some other property/attribute ? All we could hope to do is find a consistent and predictable way to handle properties, so that clients would know at the very least how to read/write them, but not necessarily know which one does what. I suppose there's possible ways around that actually, by providing some way to describe properties and what they do and so on ... but that's beyond the scope of what I'm trying to do I think ... J.F. -Original Message- From: Kapil Thangavelu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 14, 2004 6:51 AM To: Shane Hathaway Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?) On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 22:46, Shane Hathaway wrote: On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the extra tips, I'll check out those interfaces! I'm also getting up to speed on the whole mapper concept, where the work regarding properties handling seems to be ? Ape supports both annotations and Zope properties. Annotations are blocks of multi-line text, while Zope properties are less constrained. On the filesystem, Ape stores many Zope properties together in a single annotation called properties. Other annotations include object classification, the remainder pickle (encoded in base 64), and security information. What are the expectations and limits of Subversion properties? If they are blocks of multi-line text, you can store the annotations as Subversion properties. If not, we'll still need a .properties file. (Note that the name .properties is thus confusing. Oops.) svn supports aribtrary property values. ie you can store binary (remainder pickles, object classification, etc.) of arbitrary size on them. there is some question of how well some naive gui client will do when trying to list such properties, as there is currently no notion of metaproperties/property schema beyond the property namespace for introspection of a property. -kapil ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My initial, uneducated thoughts on the topic were simplistic, but then I'm a big K.I.S.S. fan: simply pickle the entire object back and forth as one entity. This means for each object, there is one file on the fs. The benefit is greater simplicity ... the downside is that you couldn't check those files out of subversion and interact with them. I also have to imagine the former is faster ? If you store pickles, you can't merge, you can't store properties, in fact you can't even store folders as directories or keep track of references between objects. At that point, you'd do much better to just use FileStorage--KISS, after all. Ape's real utility is in breaking objects apart for storage. If you don't need that, you don't need Ape. But I like to think it makes the job of breaking objects apart for storage relatively simple. But if usnig the latter, then I'd think that in SVN there would be only 1 file, written by a specific mapper for a specific content type, say image. the data written to the file is such that if checked out, the file works, so I can open it in photoshop or something. I however, would simply put everything else in properties, if that makes sense at all. Zope properties, security information, and so on. 1 porperty, 1 piece of data. No need for reading/writing multi-line text. That's fine, although you'll need to distinguish Zope properties from other kinds of properties. For example, if some object has a class_name Zope property, you'd be in trouble if the system mixed that up with the class_name key of the object classification. The only thing I'm not so sure about is this remainder ... Though if it really is a base64 encoded string, there's no reason not to put that in a property as well. That's correct, it's always base64 encoded (with some comments.) The benefits I see: - The filesystem reflects the object structure, no extra files lying around. Definitely. - a more consistent way to setup mappers/gateways: there's data, and there's everything else. Have a common/defined/smart way of handling everything else. I would recommend you defer this for a while. Lots of objects don't easily fit this model. For example, what is the data of a CMF tool? We can make plenty of progress on Subversion without thinking about changing the way mappers are defined. - with the use of the properties related svn funtions, we better leverage SVN's features. Yup. - possibly better performance/simpler code by not needing the whole multiple file management and read/write of text files. Heck the whole AnnotatedFileSystem, thing could be dropped/replaced with a PropertyFileSystem implementation of some kind maybe ?? I'd guess there's no need for any such thing in Subversion. I think your code might eventually share a lot of code with the fs package, but if you'd like to start by making a clean break from the fs package, by all means go ahead. Shane ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Right now the fs implementation stores script commands that are cummulated upon connect() (I think?), validated as best as possible upon vote() and run upon finish(). I don't see why this couldn't be adapted to SVN txn's ... connect() = start a txn, vote() = validation (what this entails needs to be defined, could involve delta operations, revision number matching, etc ... ?), finish() = commit the svn txn. The transaction script is necessary for exactly one thing: translation between OIDs and paths. I agonized over this for months, but translating OIDs to paths simply requires complex machinery like this. Also, there is only one reason we have to translate OIDs to paths: opening files by inode number is disallowed (and probably unreliable) in most operating systems. In Subversion, is it possible to read/write a versioned object by unique identifier rather than by path? If so, it's a great blessing and we don't need a transaction script. Shane ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fact is if one wanted a client to interact with a svn repository that stores zope objects, it would need to be fairly specifically designed for it ... How would a client (Say dreamweaver with a subversion plug-in) know that when editing an image, the x and y size properties need to be updated ? What if someone monkey patches the image type to add some other property/attribute ? I would say Ape is quite good at accepting data from non-Zope-aware tools, and I'd like to make it better. The fact that Ape stores the image dimensions separately from the image content is an implementation decision in the serializer. You could instead tell the serializer to detect image dimensions when loading the object. The detection is a relatively inexpensive operation. Shane ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
cool, let me try the cmfsvnbrowser first thanks. =) Arthur On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:35:14 -0400, Jean-Francois.Doyon wrote Well there you go, perfect :) -Original Message- From: Kapil Thangavelu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 14, 2004 6:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?) On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 20:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, Hmmm, well it's as stable as Ape and Subversion are respectively :) I wouldn't call it stable no, it's something I did over the long week-end we just had, and that's about it :) Ape is at 0.8 and therefore becoming quite mature, I'd have to let others speak as to it stability however ... Subversion is also probably quite stable (It just reached 1.0), though I don't know how heavily tested it's been in a long running process (Might it have some memeory leaks ?) ... the svn apache server model is a long running process and is fairly stable on memory usage. the python bindings require doing some manual memory management, but the pool api makes it easy to deallocate arbitrary allocations safely. the cmfsvnbrowser code i ref'd early has been in production by myself and others for almost a year and runs with a stable memory footprint. -kapil ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ) -- Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org) ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
Oh, a very good idea indeed! We'll have to look at that eventually. The mechanism you describe is preferable, but it should be noted that subversion properties are easily accessible using the clients. So long as said properties are human readable/writable, that's also an option. The main issue for me (And many others I suppose), is the fact that every single object type I use is either completely custom, or a monkey patched version of a built-in type (Notably OFS.Image for instance). So there would have to be a reliable serializer for other objects, which I beleive you already have, so that's OK :) What happens is you write a new serializer, notably write a custom serializer for an object type you've already been using for a while, using the default one ? (Presumably because you WANT to be able to access the contents from other tools) I think I noticed that somewhere in the .properties file there was a note of the class used for serializing ... Is there a way for a serialized instance to remember which serializer was used ? Or does everything break when I change the definition of a serializer (Old instances can no longer be read) ? J.F. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 14/04/2004 7:39 PM Subject: RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?) On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fact is if one wanted a client to interact with a svn repository that stores zope objects, it would need to be fairly specifically designed for it ... How would a client (Say dreamweaver with a subversion plug-in) know that when editing an image, the x and y size properties need to be updated ? What if someone monkey patches the image type to add some other property/attribute ? I would say Ape is quite good at accepting data from non-Zope-aware tools, and I'd like to make it better. The fact that Ape stores the image dimensions separately from the image content is an implementation decision in the serializer. You could instead tell the serializer to detect image dimensions when loading the object. The detection is a relatively inexpensive operation. Shane ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ) ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
Hello, Hmmm, well it's as stable as Ape and Subversion are respectively :) I wouldn't call it stable no, it's something I did over the long week-end we just had, and that's about it :) Ape is at 0.8 and therefore becoming quite mature, I'd have to let others speak as to it stability however ... Subversion is also probably quite stable (It just reached 1.0), though I don't know how heavily tested it's been in a long running process (Might it have some memeory leaks ?) ... Basically, I wouldn't recommend for usage yet. I'm not even distributing it just yet, mostly simply because right now it's code is still intermingled with Ape's ... As soon as I pull it out into a seperate product I'll be sure ot post it on zope.org and notify the list, as I'm sure I'll be looking for feedback/testers. I would estimate that moment to be weeks away though ... Thanks, J.F. -Original Message- From: Arthur Chan Chi Chuen To: Kapil Thangavelu; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13/04/2004 2:13 PM Subject: Re: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely revis ion based storage for Zope ?) Hi all, I've read your discussion about version control, it seems a cool thing you guys making good progress. Btw, can I ask is the Ape using Subversion in Zope stable? how able CMF stuff? I wanna make/find a document management system which can provide some kinda version control in Plone. Thanks Arthur On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 04:06:26 -0400, Kapil Thangavelu wrote On Mon, 2004-04-12 at 18:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: G'Day, Well, step one is done ... I now have Zope + Ape using Subversion as it's filesystem !! cool! This is step one because, as Shawn suggested (Thanks for the pointer, that's what I needed!), this simply means that Zope uses SVN purely as a filesystem. Because of subversion's nature, I want to look at 2 things beyond this that traditional filesystems don't support: - Use zope's username for SVN logging. using AccessControl.getSecurityManager().getUser().getId() and setting it up as a revision prop ( or directly when creating the repo transaction) should do it. - History/Undo support: View past revisions of an object, and revert to such a past revision. perhaps the code for this would be helpful, (remove image for code link) http://zope.org/Members/k_vertigo/Products/CMFSubversionBrowser/FileRevi sions. png - Zope Version support: SVN is fully transactional and atomic, this should allow for support of Zope versions (I think ?) zope version support isn't really all that worthwhile, esp in a cmf context. in general zope's version support (or zodb more particularly) is a database level feature masquerading as an application one. since objects modified in a version are in essence locked from participating in other transactions, actions like modifying content in a version in a cmf site amounts to locking the catalog from changes outside of the version, which amounts to shutting down write activities to a cmf site. otoh, integration with zope's transaction manager would be a good thing, although its problematic to integrate between svn and zope txn models, more on that in a moment. In the longer term, there's great opportunity for: - Built-in conflict management and resolution: No more need for a SafetyBelt type approach. Right now I haven't looked at this at all. I plan to implement smart merging where possible (It might work already actually, I just need to test it). True conflicts (Where a merge can't be accomplished withouth user interaction) would raise some sort of conflict error. i don't know that conflict management is really useful in this context. svn like zope relies on optimistic concurrency control, and currently doesn't support dav locking (which zope does). ie, it will just throw an error if the content has been changed since the transaction began. the 'normal' concurrency control of svn is better but dependent on using the working copy (wc) layer, which is additional programming and storage overhead. so at the layer of the svn client this is already done and working and good, but integrating this functionality into zope is a bit harder without wc overhard. this also makes the transaction integration becomes harder because both zope and svn are using what amounts to optimistic concurrency control which makes it impossible afaics, to get real txn integration, ie in zope's two phase commit strategy, the last chance for a participant to safely abort is tpc_vote, but there is no real way of knowing if the svn txn will suceed or not until its tried. if it is tried at this stage and succeeds then there is the possibility of a latter txn participant failing the tpc_vote and the txn being aborted, and if waits till tpc_finish (last part of two phase commit) and the svn txn fails it can hose the
RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
Brad, About the branch thing ... That's basically the idea! The bigger problem here is how to manage this both internally and from a user/administrator perspective. This paradigm only really makes sense in the CMF world anyways, and I want to focus on basic Zope before moving up to the extra layer CMF represents. I'm also worried getting something like this to work with CMF woudl require an ungodly amount of monkey patching :P The main things with CMF would be: 1) published type states vs. other states: how does one tell/define the difference ? How does this information get passed to/from the publishing system or the storage layer ? Possible solution: Have the subversion/zope interface interact with DCWorkflow. When an object is changed, consult DCWorkflow settings and determine what state the object is in. If the state is deemed published, copy the object into the publishing branch. 2) If we got this far, then I need to know when to use the branch vs. the trunk. From a user prespective this isn't too big a deal, a ZMI interface, cookies, etc ... That's all ok ... The problem is that by the time the request comes to the storage side of things, that information is most likely gone (Don't know though, I'm still learning). Then there's the whole caching thing that would probably complicate things. 2) Message logging: CMF comments when doing a workflow action could go straight into SVN's logging, again how this might be accomplished isn't clear as of yet. This is all for the future though, I'm nowhere near this yet!! Also, I'm thinking the cooler features may just have to wait for Zope 3 ... Implementing them in Zope might be too convoluted. I should probably start a Wiki on this topic ! J.F. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13/04/2004 8:40 AM Subject: Re: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely revis ion based storage for Zope ?) On 12 Apr 2004 at 18:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyways, I'm just rambling by now ... Comments, thoughts and constructive criticism welcome ! This sounds wonderful! Regarding versions. Perhap you can have a control panel setting that selects the branch to publish by default. The ZMI could offer another mechanism that uses cookies to select the desired branch or version That is, a branch name or PREV, HEAD etc. But, I use jEdit and FTP for most of my Zope work, so would really like to have a way to access version/branches via FTP. Maybe that can be done by having pseudo subdirectories named after revisions or branches. So /myFolder/.Prev/index_html would do what you expect (note you can't save to old versions anyway ..) -- Brad Clements,[EMAIL PROTECTED] (315)268-1000 http://www.murkworks.com (315)268-9812 Fax http://www.wecanstopspam.org/ AOL-IM: BKClements ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ) ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
Shane, Thanks for the extra tips, I'll check out those interfaces! I'm also getting up to speed on the whole mapper concept, where the work regarding properties handling seems to be ? I've done some reading, and I need to do some more, but I'll get there :) As for the seperation of code ... I now have a subversion directory as a sibbling to fs ... I had to edit a couple of files outside that directory, but still the seperation is nicer. eventually I'd have to make it into a product, is that doable ? J.F. -Original Message- From: Shane Hathaway To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13/04/2004 11:43 AM Subject: Re: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely revis ion based storage for Zope ?) On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is step one because, as Shawn suggested (Thanks for the pointer, that's what I needed!), this simply means that Zope uses SVN purely as a filesystem. Because of subversion's nature, I want to look at 2 things beyond this that traditional filesystems don't support: To take this to the next level, you need to implement IFSReader and IFSWriter instead of the more basic file operations interface. See Ape/lib/apelib/fs/interfaces.py. In IFSReader/IFSWriter, you're a little closer to objects, and you work with OIDs instead of paths. I expect that history and version support will require us to augment IFSReader or add another interface. - Use zope's username for SVN logging. - History/Undo support: View past revisions of an object, and revert to such a past revision. - Zope Version support: SVN is fully transactional and atomic, this should allow for support of Zope versions (I think ?) These seem doable. In the longer term, there's great opportunity for: - Built-in conflict management and resolution: No more need for a SafetyBelt type approach. Right now I haven't looked at this at all. I plan to implement smart merging where possible (It might work already actually, I just need to test it). True conflicts (Where a merge can't be accomplished withouth user interaction) would raise some sort of conflict error. This could be complicated, because after the merge you have to be sure Zope caches the merged state rather than either of the intermediate states. The idea has potential, though! - Editing Zope content objects through interaction with the svn repository. I can checkout the repository, edit some objects, and chek them back in, never interacting with Zope directly ... I've already tried this ! Works great for text based content types such as PageTemplates or DTML Documents and so on ... I even did it with a JPG, though because the properties hold width and height, you get some weird looking pictures :) The concept is valid though. There may someday be a way to leverage this functionality better with a purpose built client of some sort. Sounds neat. Fortunately, Ape doesn't have to be aware of this. :-) - Leveraging SVN's property management. Content in SVN has properties, much like Zope does. I haven't looked at it yet, but I've noticed .properties file appearing ... I'm guessing those are the Zope properties, which would be better handled by subversion's property mechanism. And properties are versioned too ! I think you'll find this easy to do once you implement IFSReader/IFSWriter. In the realm of the wishful thinking, there's even more: Right now, HEAD (Latest/youngest revision) is always used and worked with. The really powerful feature I want to eventually get to is publsihing something of a given revision, while editing another. One potential paradigm for distiguishing between the two modes of operation could be to use anonymous vs. authenticated. This is not useful to everyone, but can be in certain circumstances, most notably where authenticated = authors/developpers and anonymous = normal users. This however requires ZMI interfaces, and in my case CMF ones as well ... This would be global though ... Eventually it'd be nice to have per object control of this stuff. Andy McKay says it can't be done, anybody care to contradict him ? :P I image I'd have to monkey pathc something DEEP in the Zope code base, but I find the mix-in class that's the commonn denominator ... why not ? Well, CMFStaging is designed to address this need. To do this at the database level, you could use versions. Right now I've been working within the fs module of apelib. I'm going to split it off into a seperate one so that it's a clean merge with Ape's code base, in case someone wants to try it, or it eventually makes into Ape's default distribution ?? ;) You can add a new module, perhaps 'svnops.py', to the 'fs' package. Then we should make the choice between fileops and svnops configurable. Shane ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML
RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
Hi J.F, Thanks for your comments first. I understand more about the process of SVN in zope now. I am very eager to have/make a document management system with good version ctrl in Plone. Some products like Silva has versions but it's just not exactly what we need. Wish you have a good progress, and let me know if I can help you in the dev. or testing pharse. Arthur On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 20:53:30 -0400, Jean-Francois.Doyon wrote Hello, Hmmm, well it's as stable as Ape and Subversion are respectively :) I wouldn't call it stable no, it's something I did over the long week-end we just had, and that's about it :) Ape is at 0.8 and therefore becoming quite mature, I'd have to let others speak as to it stability however ... Subversion is also probably quite stable (It just reached 1.0), though I don't know how heavily tested it's been in a long running process (Might it have some memeory leaks ?) ... Basically, I wouldn't recommend for usage yet. I'm not even distributing it just yet, mostly simply because right now it's code is still intermingled with Ape's ... As soon as I pull it out into a seperate product I'll be sure ot post it on zope.org and notify the list, as I'm sure I'll be looking for feedback/testers. I would estimate that moment to be weeks away though ... Thanks, J.F. -Original Message- From: Arthur Chan Chi Chuen To: Kapil Thangavelu; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13/04/2004 2:13 PM Subject: Re: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely revis ion based storage for Zope ?) Hi all, I've read your discussion about version control, it seems a cool thing you guys making good progress. Btw, can I ask is the Ape using Subversion in Zope stable? how able CMF stuff? I wanna make/find a document management system which can provide some kinda version control in Plone. Thanks Arthur On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 04:06:26 -0400, Kapil Thangavelu wrote On Mon, 2004-04-12 at 18:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: G'Day, Well, step one is done ... I now have Zope + Ape using Subversion as it's filesystem !! cool! This is step one because, as Shawn suggested (Thanks for the pointer, that's what I needed!), this simply means that Zope uses SVN purely as a filesystem. Because of subversion's nature, I want to look at 2 things beyond this that traditional filesystems don't support: - Use zope's username for SVN logging. using AccessControl.getSecurityManager().getUser().getId() and setting it up as a revision prop ( or directly when creating the repo transaction) should do it. - History/Undo support: View past revisions of an object, and revert to such a past revision. perhaps the code for this would be helpful, (remove image for code link) http://zope.org/Members/k_vertigo/Products/CMFSubversionBrowser/FileRevi sions. png - Zope Version support: SVN is fully transactional and atomic, this should allow for support of Zope versions (I think ?) zope version support isn't really all that worthwhile, esp in a cmf context. in general zope's version support (or zodb more particularly) is a database level feature masquerading as an application one. since objects modified in a version are in essence locked from participating in other transactions, actions like modifying content in a version in a cmf site amounts to locking the catalog from changes outside of the version, which amounts to shutting down write activities to a cmf site. otoh, integration with zope's transaction manager would be a good thing, although its problematic to integrate between svn and zope txn models, more on that in a moment. In the longer term, there's great opportunity for: - Built-in conflict management and resolution: No more need for a SafetyBelt type approach. Right now I haven't looked at this at all. I plan to implement smart merging where possible (It might work already actually, I just need to test it). True conflicts (Where a merge can't be accomplished withouth user interaction) would raise some sort of conflict error. i don't know that conflict management is really useful in this context. svn like zope relies on optimistic concurrency control, and currently doesn't support dav locking (which zope does). ie, it will just throw an error if the content has been changed since the transaction began. the 'normal' concurrency control of svn is better but dependent on using the working copy (wc) layer, which is additional programming and storage overhead. so at the layer of the svn client this is already done and working and good, but integrating this functionality into zope is a bit harder without wc overhard. this also makes the transaction integration becomes harder because both zope and svn
Re: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brad, About the branch thing ... That's basically the idea! The bigger problem here is how to manage this both internally and from a user/administrator perspective. This paradigm only really makes sense in the CMF world anyways, and I want to focus on basic Zope before moving up to the extra layer CMF represents. I'm also worried getting something like this to work with CMF woudl require an ungodly amount of monkey patching :P The main things with CMF would be: 1) published type states vs. other states: how does one tell/define the difference ? How does this information get passed to/from the publishing system or the storage layer ? Possible solution: Have the subversion/zope interface interact with DCWorkflow. When an object is changed, consult DCWorkflow settings and determine what state the object is in. If the state is deemed published, copy the object into the publishing branch. 2) If we got this far, then I need to know when to use the branch vs. the trunk. From a user prespective this isn't too big a deal, a ZMI interface, cookies, etc ... That's all ok ... The problem is that by the time the request comes to the storage side of things, that information is most likely gone (Don't know though, I'm still learning). Then there's the whole caching thing that would probably complicate things. 2) Message logging: CMF comments when doing a workflow action could go straight into SVN's logging, again how this might be accomplished isn't clear as of yet. This is all for the future though, I'm nowhere near this yet!! Also, I'm thinking the cooler features may just have to wait for Zope 3 ... Implementing them in Zope might be too convoluted. I should probably start a Wiki on this topic ! J.F. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13/04/2004 8:40 AM Subject: Re: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely revis ion based storage for Zope ?) On 12 Apr 2004 at 18:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyways, I'm just rambling by now ... Comments, thoughts and constructive criticism welcome ! This sounds wonderful! Regarding versions. Perhap you can have a control panel setting that selects the branch to publish by default. The ZMI could offer another mechanism that uses cookies to select the desired branch or version That is, a branch name or PREV, HEAD etc. But, I use jEdit and FTP for most of my Zope work, so would really like to have a way to access version/branches via FTP. Maybe that can be done by having pseudo subdirectories named after revisions or branches. So /myFolder/.Prev/index_html would do what you expect (note you can't save to old versions anyway ..) François, we did a versioning Product here at redCOR which is about to go into production. It is served trough DCWorkflow state changes. It stores a series of objects per versioned object. One for each version. No diff's or such. I would be very much interested to adapt it such that it uses an APE/svn augmented storage for it. Robert ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the extra tips, I'll check out those interfaces! I'm also getting up to speed on the whole mapper concept, where the work regarding properties handling seems to be ? Ape supports both annotations and Zope properties. Annotations are blocks of multi-line text, while Zope properties are less constrained. On the filesystem, Ape stores many Zope properties together in a single annotation called properties. Other annotations include object classification, the remainder pickle (encoded in base 64), and security information. What are the expectations and limits of Subversion properties? If they are blocks of multi-line text, you can store the annotations as Subversion properties. If not, we'll still need a .properties file. (Note that the name .properties is thus confusing. Oops.) As for the seperation of code ... I now have a subversion directory as a sibbling to fs ... I had to edit a couple of files outside that directory, but still the seperation is nicer. eventually I'd have to make it into a product, is that doable ? Why not add your code to Ape? I think it would be easier for both of us to maintain that way. Shane ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
