cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephan Michels <>
Subject RE: Thoughts about requirements for a cms
Date Tue, 04 Jun 2002 08:46:47 GMT

On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Brian Topping wrote:

> > slide://<namespace>/<uri of the
> > resource>?username=<principal>&revision=<revision>
> I hadn't really done much thinking about slide before.  One of my concerns is that
> the performance is sufficient to base a production system on, but of course this
> performance could be developed incrementally.  I trust that Slide will
> do it's part to be as efficient as practical,

I have tested it on my system.. Retrieving a content from the filesystem
via file:// and via slide:// from a MySQL database isn't really slower.

> I am more concerned that
> we are able to interface to Slide in a manner that is potentially an
> in-process call for the URL resolution.  Again, these are optimizations,
> I just want to be sure from the outset that the path is there.  If
> WebDAV was the *only* access to the repository, I would be more
> concerned (slide has direct access APIs as well that we could emulate
> the same result through)...
> Regardless, the more I consider your proposal, the more I like it (for whatever that
is worth ;)
> > Jakarta Slide have a WebDAV servlet, so you able to access
> > the repository
> > via http. Searching is no so easy, this will be a job for a sitemap
> > component.
> On their 2.0 list is integration with Lucene, shouldn't we go that way as the conduit
for searching?

I think Lucene shouldn't have any problems with the repository.

> > > 2) that there is support for the in-place editing with the
> > > attribute.  I don't know a lot about this, but Q42 Xopus is
> > doing this
> > > and apparently is putting their technology into Mozilla
> > 1.1.  I don't
> > > care either way about M$, but I do like where Q42 is going.
> >
> > My knowledge about "CONTENTEDITABLE" is very limited, but I
> > think this is
> > not the best way.
> I'm interested in your thoughts on alternatives to this.  I may not have been clear
> enough in the context of Slide:  CONTENTEDITABLE is an orthogonal access
> method, not the only one.  The user can choose the Slide method,
> CONTENTEDITABLE, maybe even adapters such as FTP, NFS and SMB (but these
> belong in Slide...)

For our clients, is the WebDAV the best way, I think. Because it is
idiot-safe. They could mount the repositories via 'MS WebFolders' and edit
with XMLSpy. They are graduated Persons, but wasn't able to use WinCVS ;-)

> An additional issue that also comes to mind is that of user/group/role
> repositories.  I'd like to see that these are unified (or at least have
> the ability to unify) against the authentication manager.  Multiple user
> repositories is a completed system is a hassle.

Last week I tested the AuthentificationManger from the SunSpot demos with
Slide, and it works pretty well. So I see there no problem.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, email:

View raw message