Torben Nehmer wrote: > Not only for that, but I'd like to have it fully transparent on the PHP > layer whether you have file storage or not. At least for read-only > access.
Sounds good, but requires a lot of up-front thinking before we actually implement anything. For me, it isn't necesary that file-based midgard apps be manageable (editable) through the Midgard API. > > Hey, you got my vote. > > You know, that I've no idea about midgard C-source code? > *lookinginnocent* Not a problem. Actually getting things implemented is a pretty minor issue. Getting the concepts right is hard. > What about a small scale solution for this: Filestorage only for > Snippet(dir)s. This could also be limited for SG0 "mounting". This way > everything would be read-only, but you could still access it directly > through the midgard layer. Instead of editing it with asgard, you use > vi ;). Something like that, but I'd prefer it if there would be a way to have apps fully file based. Untar, config, run. > Problems there: Replication... I don't see this as an issue. Apps will be long-lasting, low-updates. Tar + download or rsync will do me fine. > And one thing else: MidCom assumes, that the end-user can modifiy a > part of the component (layout and configuration parts). They have to > stay either in the Midgard DB or have to be stored somewhere else. I'm > not sure what to do here. Well, that's the hard part :) Ideally, we'd want to have a reliable mechanism where style info could be file and/or DB based, while the app lives in a file. This doesn't preclude the way things work now in Midgard, of course. It'd be an alternate form of deployment. Emile --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
