Hi, Ok... <SOAPBOX> "Languages" that do not have a 'external' representation really "get my goat". There is no reason to not have a "source code" representation for anything that appears in a symbol table (e.g. the 'internal object structure'). I want source1->encode->structure->decode->source2 such that if I apply the above to my source creating source1, and then apply it again to source1 resulting in source2, source1 and source2 are character identicial (comments and all), and except for use of "white space" both source1 and source2 are character identical to my original source. (Like I can do with indent(1) to enforce a 'shop coding style standard'). </SOAPBOX> In reading Paul's reply, I am reminded of what /proc does... (To my knowledge) nothing in /proc is a "real" file, but open(), read() etc don't seem to notice that. Likewise, the "source" interface to ZOPE could have an ftp (or even 'mountable filesystem') "appearance" for the navigational/organizational aspects (object hierarchy). The contents of each object (IMO) *must* have a source code representation, which is fully capable of representing all aspects of the object, but in a "conventional" format (not XML). The fact that XML is capable of representing everything in ZOPE, it seems that a suitable set of DTD/mapping/magic would render (decode) any ZOPE object into a 'suitable' (<retronym>human</retronym> language independent) source code, and could drive a "compiler" that would translate (encode) a source back into the internal object structure. Essentially, what I am suggesting would be to add a layer between people and the existing XML interface, where there is a 1:1 relationship between each "source code construct" and each "object structure construct". ftp | /--->Encoder-->\ fs |Source- | --XML--ZOPE etc | Code \<---Decoder<--/ \ DTD/mapping/magic (vulgar localizations) In fact, this interface notion would be useful regardless of the "source" code, even XML. Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me that the XML encode/decode interface is mostly (if not completely) done. The questions that I have are: 1. How well does the import/export function deal with 'partial' trees It seems to me that this is important for working on a single ZOPE instance, or collection of instances, irrespective of the hierarchy from which they may have been selected. 2. Can the acquisition expectations (of an object) be stated, or explicitly encoded so that the encoding of an object more or less 'stands alone' (that is, acquisition expectations be identified by name so that any willing supplier of that name is acceptable. This is probably currently a weak link because (from what I've seen, the XML representation is accomplishing the encoding of these dependencies by "nesting" the specs. IMO, the dependencies need to have explicit encoding rather than a "inclusive scoping" (akin to what we have in explicit transistors vs nested gates, or explicit gates vs nested chips, in a circuit). 3. Object ids. This is potentially beyond what I think I know about... What I am concerned about includes... o If object ids are, or can be globally unique, then how does one deal with the importing of such an object? o Does the mere changing of the object (you would be 're- compiling' it) cause it to get a new object id? o What happens if I import your source? How and when does that object id get assigned (I'm thinking in the CORBA sense here)... or o Are ZOPE objects "below the line", so to speak (e.g. they are not published beyond the "local container"? o How do I publish a ZOPE object's services beyond the "local container" (thinking of distributed/migratable objects here, where I'd use something like CORBA directory services to get to the object's services)... Paul Everitt wrote:
Gregor wrote:
I remember this problem was raised here once, but I don't know if there's a solution now: I'd like to use something else than Netscape's text widget to edit my Zope site. XEmacs would be preferred. Ftp access to the site does work with the /superuser@host#8021:/ syntax. The problem is that if I edit and save a DTML method with XEmacs, the method turns into a DTML document, breaking the logic of the site.
I think I understood the underlying problem (ftp just can't express the differences between the objects), but I don't remember if there was any workaround.
This, I'm afraid, is a big problem. Trying to get a dumb object system (FTP) to play with a smart object system (the web object model) is quite problematic.
I can tell you the basic idea we have around here to address this, but I'll warn that there is no activity to implement. Thus, consider this a suggestion, and I'll note that patches are accepted. :^)
Basically, one proposal allows _all_ objects to have a discoverable XML interface via FTP. You walk up to a Folder. You see a special folder, perhaps "mgmt". You go into that folder and you see a bunch of things that look like files, such as "addFolder.xml". You GET that "file", edit it. When you save it, Zope makes the appropriate change.
The benefit here is that you can express all kinds of metadata. You certainly can manipulate all the built-in classes (folders, etc.), but you can also grab Python products and ZClass products. You can also get at the interface to edit properties, change security settings, etc.
In some cases this interface could be more convenient that the current one. For instance, you edit a "listAllDTMLDocuments.xml" file that contained an XML representation of all the folder's DTML Documents. You could then do a global search and replace using standard Emacs/XEmacs tools. Alternatively, you could create a .xml "file" that let you add ten things at one time.
Essentially you take stupid files, find a way to express richer semantics (XML), then use this to script the Zope object system.
Just my $0.02. Again, this isn't on the radar, but some discussion has been put into it.
--Paul
Paul Everitt Digital Creations paul@digicool.com 540.371.6909 ----------------------------------------- The Open Source Zope application server http://www.zope.org/
-- Cheers, --ldl ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- LD Landis ldl@HealthPartners.Com N0YRQ Voice 612/883-5511 Fax 612/883-6363 HealthPartners, 8100 34th Avenue So, PO Box 1309, Minneapolis, MN 55440-1309 Shape your life not from your memories, but from your hopes. (Borrowed) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------