Michael Wechner schrieb:
J. Wolfgang Kaltz wrote:
Michael Wechner schrieb:
(...)
if one wants to use Lenya as "DMS" where WebDAV might be handy as
well, then it
definitely makes sense that also a type "leaf/resource" is supported,
e.g. for
offer.doc
cv.sxw
report.pdf
In current Lenya, these would assets, not documents, so created via a
different mechanism than the one we were talking about here (the old
ParentChildCreatorInterface)
well, I am not talking about the current situation, because the current
situation how
assets are treated is not very good, because they cannot really be
reused, or versioned,
or whatsoever.
yes, but the interface we are currently discussing simply is not about
assets, it is ParentChildCreatorInterface (renamed to
NodeCreatorInterface), which is for documents. So I don't see what a
parameter for ParentChildCreatorInterface, which is used for documents,
has to do with assets.
If we are talking about designing a new API for creating documents and
assets in a similar fashion, then we should talk about that API and what
its requirements would be. But that is another discussion !
it's not a limitation, it's a flexibility with a default setting,
but I don't
want to start another religious thread here.
it doesn't offer anything that i can think of. yes its flexible, but
useless.
I don't think it's useless at all (see above). Why do you consider it
useless?
The thing is that the interface had a parameter of type short, to
distinguish between "leaf" and "branch" node, but this parameter had
no effect. It was not stored anywhere, nor was it accessed at any
point in Lenya.
maybe not within the default or the blog publication, but I guess there
used or are
other third-party publications which make use of it
I don't understand what you mean by "make use of it". The Lenya core did
not do anything with the parameter, did not store it, and did not access
it. So anything a custom publication would have done with this parameter
would be completely custom, and not make use of anything in the core.
Please see also below regarding the interface
So I have removed it, since IMHO interfaces which suggest some
mechanism which doesn't exist are "not a good thing".
if the "API" does provide a method, but the samples don't, then that
doesn't mean it's not
being used
If we need to distinguish leaves and branches for editable documents,
we will have to see how to implement it; but the current code was not
providing this in any case.
Hope that clarifies things
it clarifies why you thought it's obsolete, but I think it should be
re-inserted for the reasons of the examples I have provided above.
The "creator" interface in trunk has been changed for several reasons;
but most importantly because it no longer uses java.io.File. In my
understanding, it was a consensus in Lenya to move away from
java.io.File towards URIs and a repository. So this means that if
anybody has implemented a custom implementation of a document creator,
she would need to change it anyway.
If my omission of a parameter of type short in the new interface is a
problem, I can put it back in again; but please see also the other
thread where Andreas is suggesting to remove the creator interface
altogether.
--
Wolfgang
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
