[chora] luxor / chora

[Anil Madhavapeddy]

On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 01:28:53AM +0200, Cynic wrote:
> At 17:53 8/10/2001, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote the following:
> -------------------------------------------------------------- 
> >On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 08:40:30AM +0200, Cynic wrote:
> >> 
> >> First, let me say that the fact that code in Chora that actually 
> >> does something (i. e. besides declarations) is spread among files 
> >> directly requested from browser and files included from these 
> >> makes it really hard to understand the code. Looks like the only 
> >> one who's been working on Chora so far is Anil, so this is 
> >> understandable (no need to read other people's code, no problems),
> >> but I'd be extremely happy if it'd be possible to reorganize the 
> >> flow so that the includes contain only class declarations etc. 
> >> Opinions?
> >
> >I must confess I have no idea what you are saying here ...
> >what do you want to do exactly?
> 
> A quick example: $fullname jumps out of nowhere in co.php. 
> Putting 
> 
> $fullname = Chora::getFullName();
>

Ahhh, right.  That's just remnants of Chuck's original
port from the perl script.  It's going to disappear very
shortly.

To get an idea of why Chora is done like this, scan over
the commit messages :)
 
> I'm not sure if I got this right: you mean that a reorganization
> that wouldn't allow to snap in other versioning systems (easily)
> isn't worthwile?
> 

Nope, it isn't - not without looking at the capabilities of
Perforce and Subversion (both of which outstrip CVS bigtime).

In fact, I'm not even sure that the same interface would be
appropriate for each of these systems.

> Yeah, I found out latter that physical path is in $fullname and the 
> filepath from URL is in $where. When I started writing phLXR I also decided
> to use PATH_INFO for this, but it only turned out it just sucks. And since
> the Chora URLs contain querystring anyway, it'd be easier if you could
> just stick &file=whatever in there. You could save the code that gets the 
> name from the URL. Not to mention problems with servers that don't support
> PATH_INFO. Is that what you planned to do?

I was planning to leave PATH_INFO, otherwise existing 
URLs would break.  What do others think?  I dont mind either
way.

Anil