« Return to Thread: Architecture the new DataSystem!
Re: Architecture the new DataSystem!
by Jaroslav Tulach
::
Rate this Message:
Dne Friday 16 May 2008 09:48:03 Marian Petras napsal(a):
> Jarda,
>
> first, I agree with Emilian that this is not about a new architecture -
> it is about one small change having big impact on performance.
>
> I like the concept of restriction of number of DataLoaders used when a
> DataObject is being created for a given file and the proposal is just
> logical. But when looking at the diff, the structure of the XML layer
> and naming of the XML elements does not seem logical to me:
>
> "Loaders"
> <MIME-type>
> "Factories"
> <list of loaders to try>
> "Actions"
> <list of actions>
>
> What does the list of actions represent? I think this is 100% functional
> in case of 1:1 mapping between MIME-type and DataObject types. How is it
> exactly used in other cases?
I can imagine how it is done for form files. The loader is registered twice,
once in Factories/text/x-form and once in Factories/text/x-java, its actions
are however just in Actions/text/x-form. This is not really consistent, for
more complex cases, however for 90% of the simple ones it is quite OK.
> The following would seem more logical to me:
>
> "MIME-types"
> <MIME-type>
> "Loaders"
> <list of loaders to try>
>
> "DataObject-types"
> <DataObject type id>
> "Actions"
> <list of actions>
>
> I know that your proposed change does not make this any worse. I just
> wanted to ask about it now that we are discussing related changes.
Yes, this is more logical, however it is a bit harder to find. As the actions
and loader registrations are really not next to each other. Indeed we cannot
change existing registrations. However if this solution shall be preferred,
then I would probably suggest to use /LoaderFactories/mime/type/x.instance
Anyway I do not know what is better. Let's discuss this on the meeting on
Thursday.
-jst
PS: Whoever wants to join, send an email to me. I'll provide conf call info.
> Jarda,
>
> first, I agree with Emilian that this is not about a new architecture -
> it is about one small change having big impact on performance.
>
> I like the concept of restriction of number of DataLoaders used when a
> DataObject is being created for a given file and the proposal is just
> logical. But when looking at the diff, the structure of the XML layer
> and naming of the XML elements does not seem logical to me:
>
> "Loaders"
> <MIME-type>
> "Factories"
> <list of loaders to try>
> "Actions"
> <list of actions>
>
> What does the list of actions represent? I think this is 100% functional
> in case of 1:1 mapping between MIME-type and DataObject types. How is it
> exactly used in other cases?
I can imagine how it is done for form files. The loader is registered twice,
once in Factories/text/x-form and once in Factories/text/x-java, its actions
are however just in Actions/text/x-form. This is not really consistent, for
more complex cases, however for 90% of the simple ones it is quite OK.
> The following would seem more logical to me:
>
> "MIME-types"
> <MIME-type>
> "Loaders"
> <list of loaders to try>
>
> "DataObject-types"
> <DataObject type id>
> "Actions"
> <list of actions>
>
> I know that your proposed change does not make this any worse. I just
> wanted to ask about it now that we are discussing related changes.
Yes, this is more logical, however it is a bit harder to find. As the actions
and loader registrations are really not next to each other. Indeed we cannot
change existing registrations. However if this solution shall be preferred,
then I would probably suggest to use /LoaderFactories/mime/type/x.instance
Anyway I do not know what is better. Let's discuss this on the meeting on
Thursday.
-jst
PS: Whoever wants to join, send an email to me. I'll provide conf call info.
« Return to Thread: Architecture the new DataSystem!
| Free Forum Powered by Nabble | Forum Help |