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
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
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
:)
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(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
[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
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
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
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,
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
: [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
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 ...
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
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
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
[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
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
25 matches
Mail list logo
