28 Sep
2004
28 Sep
'04
8:27 p.m.
yes, but there is one big difference, BOSS creates files that are at least
10x smallter than SIXX. If you create a standard wiki, add a couple pages
etc and then serialize via SIXX and compare that to serializing via BOSS
you will find a 10x difference. The difference may be even greater once
there is some real content in there. Also the time to save is of course
much, much quicker. A database would be ideal but you can probably go
quite a long ways with using Boss for your storage. EzBoard.com used it
for quite a while and they are a huge site. If I need to scale up to a
database I will probably first look into something like OminBase, a simple
OODMS available for VW, free for non-commercial purposes. Finally, one of
the benefits of a real database should be the capability of storing real
deltas. Not sure if SmallWiki as it stands can tell the storage manager
that but perhaps it is not that difficult to find out.
-Charles
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:09:39 +0200, Alexandre Bergel <bergel(a)iam.unibe.ch>
wrote:
I read a bit about BOSS, this is similar to what Lukas did at the very
beginning with SIXX. Everything was serialized under the xml format.
I think the ideal would be to have a database behind... We have to
discuss.
Alexandre
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 12:59:50PM -0500, Charles A. Monteiro wrote:
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Just to be sure, this is in VW. Recreation of a
wiki is done by a
configuration utility which I call Configurator, sounded like a decent
name :) The content of the wiki i.e its folders, pages, resources etc is
persisted via Boss i.e. to a file. The configurator via a config file
takes care of setting up the wiki which includes user, the
appropropriate
roles and permissions and the loading of the boss file i.e. the
contents.
The configurator is also told how many snapshots to keep around and can
be
also told to load a specific snapshot, by default it loads the latest.
Once you have things setup as you like them re-starting a wiki is a
matter
of:
Configurator startWikiFrom: aConfigFile.
If it is indeed VW that you are using , I would like to tidy things up
and
probably make the user and role configuration a little easier. I
currently
allow anonymoous user the capability of viewing but not editing, a
normal
user can only edit pages but not folders and of course admin can do
whatever it feels like doing. Of course you can create your own roles.
Let me know if this would be useful to you and if so I'll put more focus
on it and I guess put it out in the Cincom public repository.
-Charles
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:34:55 +0200, Alexandre Bergel
<bergel(a)iam.unibe.ch>
wrote:
database?
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
>I'm using VW and yes I have not stripped
my image. No need in my case.
>Even if I did strip my image I would not have the same problem since I
>don't rely on the auto image save storage mechanism but rather I
built a
storage
strategy that uses BOSS i.e. the contents are bossed out at
regular intervals given that there is new content to save. Finally, as
long as one has left the appropriate classes in the image there should
not
be a problem in VW with doing auto image saves although in general I
don't
like the idea any how.
Humm... I do not know much about BOSS. What is the status of your
extension ? Could we use it ? Can you recreate a wiki from the
Alexandre
>
>-Charles
>
>
>On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:49:36 +0200, Alexandre Bergel
><bergel(a)iam.unibe.ch>
>wrote:
>
>>>We use VNC to connect and then on unix I imagine that exec does that
>>>for you, running a process that is not killing when you exit
>>>your session
>>
>>Right. The think with stripping an image is that there is some
problem
>>with the saving mechanism of Smallwiki.
The image is saved
>automatically
>>each hour and it does not work properly with a stripped image.
>>
>>I already mention this problem to the vwnc mailing list I guess... I
do
>>not know if this has changed yet.
>>
>>We use VNC on our solaris server to hold the X session, and on our
mac
>>we use the X11 server to connect to it. It
works pretty fine.
>>
>>However, with Squeak there should not be any problem to have a
non-gui
>>version. But we did not find it necessary
to have it here, at the
>>University.
>>
>>
>>
>>Bytecode modification is extremely easy to do in Smalltalk. A 10
second
>>long example (made with Squeak). In a
workspace do the following:
>>Object compile: 'foo ^ 1 + 2'. "Object new foo => 3"
>>(Object >> #foo) at: 7 put: 177. "The bytecode 177 does a - between
the
>operand"
>Object new foo => -1
>
>But I guess we are loosing track of this mailing list :-)
>
>Cheers,
>Alexandre
>
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/