Forum OpenACS Development: Response to Edit This Page 2.0 project

Posted by Jowell Sabino on
Hi Luke,

This should be the model for openacs development -- design decisions are brought in the open for the community to discuss. Thanks for making the process transparent.

I have not delved deeply into the ETP datamodel, because I got hung up on my inability to delete an ETP package instance. I gave up easily, but that is just me. 😉

Anyhow, with regards parametization of storage type, one advantage of filesystem over database storage is performance. But the cost is that it is a bit complicated to backup content because a pg_dump isn't enough. You still need to create a tarball of the actual content on the filesystem. It would be nice if ETP 2.0 would be designed with giving users the choice: performance vs. ease of backup. You could design ETP so that there is only one per-package parameter of storage type. Parameter lookup is done only when new content is added, so you only need to provide a wrapper for content_item__create that includes this added parameter, plus extra logic to determine which storage_type parameter to pass on to content_item__create. Including the parametization of storage type is (hopefully) trivial to add. But then again, it is you who is doing the coding...

My comments regarding folder/package mapping and adding triggers are really about making sure that we maintain the separation of packages that is one of the defining features of Openacs4. I don't want to go back to the monolithic nature of 3.x again.

Oh, did I say that I am interested and willing to alpha/beta test ETP 2.0?