RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-19 Thread Shane Hathaway
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

RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-19 Thread Kapil Thangavelu
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

RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-18 Thread Kapil Thangavelu
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

RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-18 Thread Kapil Thangavelu
:) -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

RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-18 Thread Kapil Thangavelu
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

RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-18 Thread Kapil Thangavelu
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

RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-18 Thread Kapil Thangavelu
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

RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-17 Thread Kapil Thangavelu
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

RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-15 Thread Shane Hathaway
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

RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-14 Thread Kapil Thangavelu
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

RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-14 Thread Kapil Thangavelu
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

RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-14 Thread Jean-Francois . Doyon
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

RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-14 Thread Jean-Francois . Doyon
(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

RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-14 Thread Jean-Francois . Doyon
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

RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-14 Thread Jean-Francois . Doyon
[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

RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-14 Thread Shane Hathaway
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

RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-14 Thread Shane Hathaway
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

RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-14 Thread Shane Hathaway
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,

RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-14 Thread Arthur Chan Chi Chuen
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

RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-14 Thread Jean-Francois . Doyon
: [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

RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-13 Thread Jean-Francois . Doyon
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 ...

RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-13 Thread Jean-Francois . Doyon
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

RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-13 Thread Jean-Francois . Doyon
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

RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-13 Thread Arthur Chan Chi Chuen
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

Re: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-13 Thread robert rottermann
[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

RE: Zope + Ape + Subversion (was: RE: [Zope-dev] Using a truely r evis ion based storage for Zope ?)

2004-04-13 Thread Shane Hathaway
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