Forum OpenACS Development: Response to Edit This Page 2.0 project

Posted by Luke Pond on
Thanks Jowell, Dave, and Alex for the good questions.

I'll try to answer Jowell's questions first.

Storage type:  The current design specifies two content types which are intended to be used in different ways, and imply a particular storage type.  etp_page_revision is for entering HTML content which will be combined with a template for presentation.  they'll be stored in the database.  etp_file_revision is for uploading a file which will be presented with its own mime type, like how file storage displays a file.  they'll be stored in the filesystem.  So you end up with text content in the database, binary content in the filesystem.  That seems like the way to get the best performance, so I wasn't planning on making the relevant storage type parameters configurable.

Folder/package mapping:  In my opinion it would be really nice if this problem were solved in the API for content_folder.  Both ETP and file-storage need the exact same functionality; content_folder__delete should delete its children for you, and some folders should be deleted automatically in response to a package being deleted in the site map.  It's cool that the problem is solved for file-storage, but I think anyone building on the CR would appreciate it if the solution was available there.

cr_items triggers for search: that's what I was suggesting; that we revise content-search.sql so that it's possible to index only published content items.  Neophytos and I talked about this a while ago and agreed this would be more useful than the current setup.

In order to use the ETP interface you have to have admin permission on the package.  No reason why you couldn't grant admin to Registered Users for a wiki-type site, or to a particular user if you wanted to implement an "everybody gets a homepage" feature.

This is not a feature we had planned (uploading the HTML content for an etp_page_revision object), but I can definitely see how it would be useful.  We'll definitely try to figure out a way to provide this option from the default UI, and to distinguish it from the more general file upload feature that is planned.