[dev] [core] Content and Timeobjects

[Michael Rubinsky]

Quoting Chuck Hagenbuch <chuck at horde.org>:

> Quoting "Michael J. Rubinsky" <mrubinsk at horde.org>:
>
>> Quoting Chuck Hagenbuch <chuck at horde.org>:
>>
>>> Quoting "Michael J. Rubinsky" <mrubinsk at horde.org>:
>>>
>>>> In an effort to firm up and simplify some things, the idea of  
>>>> moving the functionality of Timeobjects into a horde-level api  
>>>> calls and the drivers into a Horde_Timeobjects package was  
>>>> proposed on IRC. Similarly, we also discussed the need to move  
>>>> the core functionality of the Content psuedo-application into a  
>>>> Horde_Content framework package. When it comes time for thinking  
>>>> about URL endpoints for the content api, that could be done via  
>>>> routes in horde-base. This alleviates confusing custom  
>>>> configuration of registry entries for both of these psuedo-apps,  
>>>> and would make it easier to use these libraries' functionality  
>>>> separate from an actual Horde-app.
>>>>
>>>> Any input or concerns about this approach before we move on it?
>>>
>>> Quick response -
>>>
>>> 1. This should be discussed on the dev list, not the core list.
>>>
>>> 2. I did Content initially as a separate package because I'd  
>>> rather we moved that way - towards drop-in bits of functionality -  
>>> rather than towards more things in the horde base package. It was  
>>> intended to be a framework package, though, not so much an  
>>> "application". I'd like to move towards a system where packages  
>>> that have controllers are automatically routable through some  
>>> mechanism, but are still separate packages - not having to put  
>>> everything like this in the base.
>>>
>>> 3. I don't follow the timeobjects proposal enough to have a  
>>> reaction. Do you mean that there would be API calls on the horde  
>>> base api for timeobjects? Why is that better? Seems like the same  
>>> thing I was talking about in Content where we'd just be moving  
>>> things into the base package...  but I may be missing the proposal  
>>> here.
>>>
>>> -chuck
>>
>> For context, here is the IRC discussion we had:
>>
>> 1:38:30 PM mrubinsk: yunosh: now that we have a more consistent  
>> solution with the install_dev script, should I add a registry entry  
>> for the content package?
>> 1:39:57 PM yunosh: in long term i rather want to see it integrated  
>> in horde base, application wise. we could still version it as a  
>> separate package for releases
>> 1:40:11 PM yunosh: so in the end it shouldn't need a registry entry
>> 1:40:24 PM mrubinsk: k
>> 1:41:19 PM yunosh: do we use any application features like registry calls ?
>> 1:42:05 PM mrubinsk: nope
>> 1:42:26 PM mrubinsk: afaik, right now the only thing using Content  
>> is kronolith, and that uses the libraries directly
>> 1:42:27 PM yunosh: i'm wondering why we need a registry entry at  
>> all then? for the urls?
>> 1:42:34 PM mrubinsk: for the include path
>> 1:42:46 PM yunosh: ah
>> 1:43:06 PM mrubinsk: I think chuck's vision was to have url  
>> endpoints for a more RESTful api
>> 1:43:27 PM mrubinsk: but right now, we use it kind of just like any  
>> other or our libraries
>> 1:43:37 PM mrubinsk: s/of/or
>> 1:43:45 PM yunosh: yep, that's why i was wondering
>> 1:44:44 PM yunosh: i guess we should discuss this with more people soonish
>> 1:44:51 PM yunosh: this also covers timeobjects
>> 1:45:15 PM yunosh: it would work perfectly fine if we just  
>> integrated it into horde
>> 1:45:20 PM mrubinsk: yea, though with timeobjects, we actually use the api
>> 1:45:40 PM yunosh: sure, but we could add the api methods to horde base
>> 1:45:46 PM yunosh: and the libraries to the framework
>> 1:45:56 PM mrubinsk: ah?yea, that makes sense
>> 1:46:16 PM mrubinsk: and for Content, just make it into a library,  
>> and worry about the URL endpoints in horde-base when it's time?
>> 1:46:59 PM yunosh: i could imagine that chuck wants to chime in,  
>> but for me that would work
>> 1:47:31 PM mrubinsk: sure. I'll try to write up an email to core@  
>> in a bit, and we'll wait for chuck, and anyone else, to chime in
>> 1:48:00 PM yunosh: cool
>
> Okay. So my questions (#2 and #3) still stand. What's the reasoning?
>
> -chuck

I would love to be able to drop in bits of functionality as you  
propose. The initial conversation was triggered by me wanting to put  
registry entries in for content and time-objects since, with the new  
install_dev script, the pat is more predictable.  It was then  
suggested to look at why we really need the registry entries etc...  
the IRC log takes over from there.

If whatever installation method we end up with allows for automatic  
creation of registry entries/routes, then great, let's do that. My  
motivation was to alleviate yet one more stumbling block to setting up  
an initial development environment for potential horde  
developers/contributors/testers etc...

Thanks,
mike

--
The Horde Project (www.horde.org)
mrubinsk at horde.org

"Time just hates me. That's why it made me an adult." - Josh Joplin