Richard Unger wrote:
Hi!Concur!
I do see the purpose of events, I just think putting themin the webDAV Layer of slide is the wrong place. Your file-system under windows or linux does not provide observer-hooks allowing you to veto writes as they occur. It would be slow, confusing, and ultimately lead to problems as apps vetoed changes they shouldn't, etc...
Here's some examples of how I see this kind of thing working:
Slide needs a presentation and business logic, or workflow, layer on top of the content repository in order to be a functional CMS. Typically this would be a web application, and this application can perform checks and verify content before allowing it to be saved on slide.
Concur!!
Additionally, you could set slide up to provide multiple views of the
same file system using versioning. Before the HEAD is tagged as stable,
releasing it to the public view, the CMS Application can verify the
content, and refuse to tag the content if it does not verify. I really
like this kind of setup.
If you bypass the CMS application and save directly to the slide system,Bingo! You Missed the POINT! We WANT documents to be edited and "save directly to the slide system, using webfolders" but if the events to the business logic are not there, then THAT is a problem. We aren't the patient in the joke that is hitting our head on the wall and you the doctor tells us to "dont't do that".
using webfolders for example, you are bypassing the checks and
verifications too.
Think of it like an IDE, like eclipse - if you dump aNo, BUT, we would want Eclipse to automatically pick up that change and "do something" whether that is to just refresh and add, ask the user on the next user event, or just report on it in the logs, or maybe we want it to check it for appropriateness, i.e. a .java file under a registeres src folder, a .class file under the registerd build, dist, bin or classes folder, etc. Maybe even trigger a new local build if it compiles.
file directly into the workspace using windows explorer or nautilus, you
need to refresh to make eclipse aware of it. You would not want hooks in
Windows Explorer or the file system driver asking eclipse for write
permission first...
There are many places to tackle the events, including slide, but vetoability is not a good idea. A simple changelistener interface should be sufficient to avoid having to poll for changes, no?
Richie
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 10:54, Daniel Florey wrote:
atWebDAV doesn't support observation, nor I know any draft that proposes
this (am I wrong?), so I think the API for observability will be put
It willthe Slide API level, or even in the domain.xml file.No, there is no webDAV draft for event handling as far as I know.
The first step will be to implement event handling at Slide API level.
someaffect many classes, but I think it is worth to do so. There will be
listenerskind of event dispatcher that can be requested via
NamespaceAccessToken.getEventHelper() ... ). You can register event
somefor different types of events and fire events. The dispatcher will do
ofevent filtering to speed up event dispatching (as there might be a lot
traffic lateron). My goal is to keep it as simple as possible.Hmmmm..... To me this begs the question, why is it not part of webDAV?
And I think the answer is that webdav is a lower level protocol, for the
*safe* transport, storage and retrieval of data in groups.
So basically I think adding vetoable events at this level is a bad idea.
If the user, for some reason, should not store the file in a certain
place, he should not have write permissions for that place. More than
this adds levels of non-determinism and uncertainty to an operation that
should be safe.
But what if the content is not accepted for any reason? Any serious content management solution should be able to do some kind of content/referential integrity checking, so there is a number of reasons why an operation could fail, not only permissions. If webDAV is not able to give the user some additional feedback on the occured error, it should be extended. I'll look into the protocol to check if some error messages can be sent.
What if a user commits a set of files, with different events being firedThe transaction will be rolled back if one event fires a veto.
for each one, some of them vetoing, some not?
As for non-vetoing events, this seems ok, but then why not stick with the listeners?
I think there are much better places for the event logic. As has been pointed out in numerous threads, slide is not a full content management system, it is more like a repository at the moment. Layers like workflow and presentation are missing entirely, and are realized by combining slide with other Servlets/Web Applications to build a full system. This is the place to put such events, not in the repository logic.
Richie
Slide started as a full cms, even though it is more like a content repository at the moment. But remember that it is the base for many content management solutions. And one very importent part is the ability to check referential integrity or validate content. This must be done in a tranaction aware manner. What if you are uploading some documents in a single transaction and one of it fails because of some reason? The whole transaction must be rolled back. This can not be achieved by the use of interceptors at the moment. So I think vetoable events are an elegant solution which enables slide to be used as a transactional content repository. If you only use slide as a simple webDAV-Folder this might sound a little bit overdosed, but if you think of it as a content repsitory this is a must.
Daniel
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
