On Jan 24, 2007, at 7:18 AM, Uwe Oestermeier wrote:
Sorry for replying so late. I have just checked in some bug fixes for
No apologies needed. Thanks for picking this up!
This was indeed not much work.
Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think a whole lot is needed to make fssync a reality:
1. Cure any bitrot that has set in. It would also ne nice to replace
tests with modern doctests.
2. Provide a Python API. fssync originally had a Python API, but this
replaced with a web-based API. I think there should be both a
API that wasn't encumbered in any way by security, and a
API. The Python API should really be Zope and even ZODB
I don't think this would be a lot of work. The original one
wasn't and would
be useful in many cases.
3. I think there should be a secure web-based interface. This will
- Adding security checks that the user is allowed to access
and de-serialization adapters,
- Adding security declarations for these adapters,
I don't think any of these would require a great deal of work.
I can try to deal with these tasks, but I fear that there is a
more to do.
While playing with real data, I noticed
- problems to serialize large sites (I run into a stack overflow and
to figure out why this happened),
Hm, interesting. I'll be curious to hear how this turns out.
- problems with unicode filenames.
As a first step I would like to clean up the existing code. Concerning
this I have questions/suggestions:
- Can the fssync:adapter zcml directive be replaced by ordinary
Maybe, but I like your idea of using utilities below. My original
along these lines: fssync should strive to serialize "all" object
data. (Note that it isn't always obvious what data is intrinsic to
an object.) I felt therefore, that inheriting synchronization
adapters would be bad. If someone created a subclass and forgot to
create an adapter, then their data would be serialized incompletely.
I like the idea of using named utilities, using dotted class names as
utility ids. See below.
An alternative might be to see if some ideas from Ape could be used
to catch when an object serialization is incomplete. I think that
this would be a lot of work and not something to pursue in the short
I have, on multiple occasions wanted class-based adapters without
inheritance. The security-checker registry is another use case for
this. At some point, I'd like to extend the component architecture
in this direction.
- Can zope.app.fssync.fspickle be replaced by zope.xmlpickle? (It
that fspickle preserves location ids but it does not seem to
order of dict items)
I'm a bit rusty on this. I would think that these can be combined.
It should, I think, be possible to generate location-aware pickles
and then use zmlpickle to represent these as XML. The trick, I
think, would be use the pickle persistent-reference mechanism to
refer to other objects by location, when necessary. I say this
without looking at the code. :) If you need me to dig deeper, I'll
try to find time to do so.
- What's the purpose of zope.app.fssync.fsbundle? Are there still
usecases for this code or can it be removed?
- What's the purpose of zope.app.fssync.fsregistry? Can this be
by utility registrations?
I believe that this is the class-based adapter registry discussed above.
Using utilities is an intriguing idea. Would you use the dotted
class name as the utility id? I assume that the utilities would
actually be adapter factories.
All in all the fssync code seem to be in an old-fashioned but
and it's a pity that it has not been maintained.
Yes. It's a pity that there isn't more time to work on useful
projects like this.
This is also very early code. It goes back to 2002. We've learned a
lot since then.
Perhaps the maintenance can be made easier if we can change the code
without deprecation warnings. Nobody seems to have used fssync in
Thanks again for looking at this.
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python
CTO (540) 361-1714
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
Zope3-dev mailing list