Menu
▾
▴
binarycloud-dev — development list for binarycloud
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2001 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(57) |
May
(287) |
Jun
(166) |
Jul
(286) |
Aug
(273) |
Sep
(254) |
Oct
(144) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(1) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Benjamin D. S. <be...@be...> - 2001-06-30 00:26:38
|
Hey guys, I have a rather large, complicated project, and am waiting for the permissions information for r2. Doesn't appear that this has been updated in the spec - What is the final goal for this stuff? -Ben -- "Life is short. Live it!" |
|
From: Peter S. <pet...@gm...> - 2001-06-30 00:15:55
|
> - There is (apparently) a set of GNU tools for Win(x) > - which includes make,find, etc. I have no clue about CVS too but this is probably the best choice for WindowsCVS. http://www.wincvs.org/ regards Peter |
|
From: Alex B. <en...@tu...> - 2001-06-29 23:53:27
|
hi all,
I've attached the second version of bc_edit, which is very nearly
feature-complete.
For those of you that don't know, this is a simple editor that is MS IE 5.5+
specific, that allows "novice" users to create very clean, simple html
visually.
The improvement here is that the actual editing component uses an IE's
"component embedding" (for lack of a better term) abilities - so you can
just call it from inside an html document ant it will appear. :)
This one does:
bold
italic
link
kill link
normal
insert <p>
indent
outdent
ordered list (1,2,3)
unordered (bullet) list
hr
laft align
center
right align
images
_and_
heading1, 2, 3.
a couple things to note:
-you can copy and paste content from any html page into bc_edit, and,
yes, edit it.
-you can easily extend the little select menu to include your own custom
tags and css subclasses. (this will likely be an "externally settable" thing
in the full r2 release)
-it has an html editing feature which allows you to view and edit the
html source, and see the results in the visual editor.
-----
-I haven't tested entity handling.
-I can't get the div to expand to height=100% without giving up the
scrolling feature in the editable div. :(
_alex
--
alex black, ceo
en...@tu...
the turing studio, inc.
http://www.turingstudio.com
vox+510.666.0074
fax+510.666.0093
|
|
From: Alex B. <en...@tu...> - 2001-06-29 23:45:40
|
agreed, though I think as soon as things are more pegged down, I'd like to take stock of all ENV, necessary utilities in PATH, etc etc etc :) ... I will post bc_edit/2 in just a moment. _alex >> Odysseas, can you recommend any reading? >> > > A friend of mine here is using the "Managing Projects > with Make" from O'Reilly > Have check it out a couple times and it is the usual > quality that you can expect from the O'Reilly animal > books. > About $11 from fatbrain: > http://www1.fatbrain.com/asp/bookinfo/bookinfo.asp?theisbn=0937175900&vm= > > In your unix box you can get help using > info "gnu make" > or sth similar > > Alex, we could also put the info2html cgi in some > place in the binarycloud site so as everybody can get > some help about the various utilities that we are > using. > Until then, here is a nice fellow that has it already > up there (fround him from google). > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~jonh/info2html/info2html-demo/info2html.cgi?(make > .info)Top > > and > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~jonh/info2html/info2html-demo/infocat.cgi > > odysseas > > P.S. Keep in mind that gnu make is much more fancy > than the standard unix make > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > binarycloud-dev mailing list > bin...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/binarycloud-dev > -- alex black, ceo en...@tu... the turing studio, inc. http://www.turingstudio.com vox+510.666.0074 fax+510.666.0093 |
|
From: Odysseas T. <ody...@ya...> - 2001-06-29 23:35:58
|
> Odysseas, can you recommend any reading? > A friend of mine here is using the "Managing Projects with Make" from O'Reilly Have check it out a couple times and it is the usual quality that you can expect from the O'Reilly animal books. About $11 from fatbrain: http://www1.fatbrain.com/asp/bookinfo/bookinfo.asp?theisbn=0937175900&vm= In your unix box you can get help using info "gnu make" or sth similar Alex, we could also put the info2html cgi in some place in the binarycloud site so as everybody can get some help about the various utilities that we are using. Until then, here is a nice fellow that has it already up there (fround him from google). http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~jonh/info2html/info2html-demo/info2html.cgi?(make.info)Top and http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~jonh/info2html/info2html-demo/infocat.cgi odysseas P.S. Keep in mind that gnu make is much more fancy than the standard unix make __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ |
|
From: David W. <dwe...@po...> - 2001-06-29 23:30:31
|
>I have admittadly not done any research, but through a couple conversations >with odysseas: > >-There is (apparently) a set of GNU tools for Win(x) - which includes make, >find, etc. Perhaps http://www.cygwin.com/ ? I've never used these tools, being an inveterate Mac user myself :) -dave -- David Weingart dwe...@po... The foot can split wood, but it can't split a watermelon. |
|
From: Alex B. <en...@tu...> - 2001-06-29 21:49:14
|
> Now I am writing modules already, (SILLY BOY) for > BC/r2, facinated enough with the concept. This > means that I am putting PHP into the module, willing > to suffer the potential nuisance of "rewriting" when > managers are introduced. And, as well, to suffer the > nuisance of tweaking as r2 changes. > > Obviously, all my modules broke with the disposal > of $SomeMod->Init(), as this functionality moved > over into a constructor. But, I don't mind. I > will tell you my experience in a day or two. The > point is, I don't think it is as bad as it may appear > to you. ok :) > But, my friends, BC has been a good experience so far. > I wrote a module over the last weekend that can browse > any MySQL database.table, allowing ADD'ing, UPDATE'ing, > DELET'ing, sorting datasets on any field via radio button, > finding datasets in any field. Now this impressed me, > cause we are always having to build these "Control Panels" > for customers to administer their (dynamic) site/shopping > cart/news site/auction site/whatever. NOW I ONLY HAVE > TO ADD ONE FLIPPIN' LINE in the $bc_page array. This > is the promise of BC, for us. If BC stopped developing > right now, we would still use it (waal, probably, anyway) coooooooool :) > Alex has made some rather startling claims for these > (I will still call them mythical) Managers. I am a > bit sceptical. If they do what is claimed, heck, > I will rewrite to adapt them. But don't think that > you are wasting your time writing modules right now. > You will learn a lot. > > </ADVOCACY> > Error: No opening <ADVOCACY> tag. <thanks> well, as myth makes its way into reality (the code existed already and is used in production elsewhere)... you'll begin to see the light :) </thanks> _a -- alex black, ceo en...@tu... the turing studio, inc. http://www.turingstudio.com vox+510.666.0074 fax+510.666.0093 |
|
From: Justin F. <je...@ey...> - 2001-06-29 21:14:12
|
From Andris Spruds/Alex dialog: [== snip, snip ==] > > Another thing - as I understand - it's impossible to write any functional > > modules for R2 simply because it does not feature any managers yet and in > > such case I would have to rewrite 50-60% of the db access code later anyway? > > Am I right? > > Sort of, but it wouldn't be "re-write" because you woudn't have to write > queries :) [== snip, snip==] Now I am writing modules already, (SILLY BOY) for BC/r2, facinated enough with the concept. This means that I am putting PHP into the module, willing to suffer the potential nuisance of "rewriting" when managers are introduced. And, as well, to suffer the nuisance of tweaking as r2 changes. Obviously, all my modules broke with the disposal of $SomeMod->Init(), as this functionality moved over into a constructor. But, I don't mind. I will tell you my experience in a day or two. The point is, I don't think it is as bad as it may appear to you. But, my friends, BC has been a good experience so far. I wrote a module over the last weekend that can browse any MySQL database.table, allowing ADD'ing, UPDATE'ing, DELET'ing, sorting datasets on any field via radio button, finding datasets in any field. Now this impressed me, cause we are always having to build these "Control Panels" for customers to administer their (dynamic) site/shopping cart/news site/auction site/whatever. NOW I ONLY HAVE TO ADD ONE FLIPPIN' LINE in the $bc_page array. This is the promise of BC, for us. If BC stopped developing right now, we would still use it (waal, probably, anyway) Alex has made some rather startling claims for these (I will still call them mythical) Managers. I am a bit sceptical. If they do what is claimed, heck, I will rewrite to adapt them. But don't think that you are wasting your time writing modules right now. You will learn a lot. </ADVOCACY> Error: No opening <ADVOCACY> tag. _jef -- Justin Farnsworth - Technical Director Eye Integrated Communications 321 South Evans - Suite 203 Greenville, NC 27858 | Tel: (252) 353-0722 |
|
From: Alex B. <en...@tu...> - 2001-06-29 18:47:10
|
> At the moment we have several very happy Unix/Linux PHP programmers talking > about the new make system, but what about my old, poor Windows 2000? What do > I have to do to get make working on it? I am ready to write/rewrite > something as long as I don't have to create another Win2K just to make R2 > to work... I have admittadly not done any research, but through a couple conversations with odysseas: -There is (apparently) a set of GNU tools for Win(x) - which includes make, find, etc. -I believe you can install command line php. Everything else should work... but again, I haven't tested anything, and I don't do development with Win(x) as a server platform. If you're interested in making a mod on the distro makes so they work with Win, I'm happy to incorporate them :) > Another thing - as I understand - it's impossible to write any functional > modules for R2 simply because it does not feature any managers yet and in > such case I would have to rewrite 50-60% of the db access code later anyway? > Am I right? Sort of, but it wouldn't be "re-write" because you woudn't have to write queries :) Once you define entities, most of your standard queries are generated for you. For strange stuff, you can keep you normal SQL that you wrote before. _alex -- alex black, ceo en...@tu... the turing studio, inc. http://www.turingstudio.com vox+510.666.0074 fax+510.666.0093 |
|
From: Andris S. <li...@ap...> - 2001-06-29 18:03:27
|
At the moment we have several very happy Unix/Linux PHP programmers talking about the new make system, but what about my old, poor Windows 2000? What do I have to do to get make working on it? I am ready to write/rewrite something as long as I don't have to create another Win2K just to make R2 to work... Another thing - as I understand - it's impossible to write any functional modules for R2 simply because it does not feature any managers yet and in such case I would have to rewrite 50-60% of the db access code later anyway? Am I right? Andris Spruds |
|
From: Alex B. <en...@tu...> - 2001-06-29 17:31:15
|
> But I don't understand the following. After running make there is the build > dir with the language rips > > r2/binarycloud/build/en/ > r2/binarycloud/build/da/ > > thats clear to me, but there are also: > > binarycloud/ > htdocs/ > > Why that ? because /path/to/r2/binarycloud/base/* is the source tree, it is not used in production. if you look in build/en/binarycloud/* you'll notice that the organization is different. the make system does all kinds of interesting things in that regard. > Under the language rips there are: > > htdocs/ > user/ > binarycould/ > > So far, so good. The second thing I don't understand is this: > > en/binarycould/lib/Timer.php > en/binarycould/lib/binarycloud/lib/ClientSniffer.php The second is a bug :) > The first line seems logical. The second kinda confusing. > > The bcp.xml files are also within htdoc of the language rips. Thought > they're only used for make not for 'production'!? They aren't used at all yet. Some xml2php is working, but not for page definitions. and you are correct, bcp.xml does not belong in the build htdocs :) _a -- alex black, ceo en...@tu... the turing studio, inc. http://www.turingstudio.com vox+510.666.0074 fax+510.666.0093 |
|
From: Alex B. <en...@tu...> - 2001-06-29 17:25:22
|
> Exactly! From what you wrote, you seem to have the same kind of
> "problem" in anticipated administration. Now, we too have a dream
> that is similar, BC offers the potential. It is no secret that
> "shopping" carts are becoming a commodity item, say. So, for
> our modest environment here in eastern NC, we want to be able
> to sell shopping carts on the cheap for everything from mom and
> pops to SOHO to medium size stores. These sites will not differ
> too much from one another in decoration or layout. You stepped out and
> said your sites will differ by 10 percent.
>
> Now I think that BC is a genius concept. What I want to be able
> to do is write a humungous Makefile where I can sit down with a "parts
> list"
> given to me by Marketing, and type one command line that does
> something on the order of:
>
> 1. creates a database and tables
> 2. populates the database with control data
> 3. selects a few GIF's that are scattered
> around in the shopping cart for site
> differentiation
> 4. creates the php files I need that uses
> the modules that I have specified
> from pre-established sets
> 5. establishes a SITE_ROOT directory with
> a correct, prestablished convention
> 6. edits my httpd.conf file
> 7. moves things to where they should be
> 8. anything else necessary which would
> carry this list to maybe 25 items
Now, that's a proper freakin' makefile! :)
> Now I _will_ restart Apache by hand to preserve my dignity.
hehehe
> The point is, BC will, or certainly has the potential to
> allow this, to make a shopping cart in 5 minutes and have
> it running in five minutes if I have done my DNS work.
yes, it certainly does (frightening)
> BUT, for this, I need for BC to stabilize in its file
> layout, and, and, and... that is why it may seem like
> I have been nitpicking on a genius conception for something
> as mundane as those silly, bloody administration tasks.
yes, but without the nitpicks I probably wouldn't have thought about that
problem because I don't run that kind of setup.
And, to my satisfaction, the answer really is that you can do that:
-without making significant changes to the directory structure
-through some fairly simple modifications to the make system.
> After your post, I don't feel as alone...
>
> Also, if you are going to write some upper-level abstract
> "administration tool" to do what my Makefile would do,
> I want to talk to you after September... Especially
> if you write it with gtk.
PHP-gtk!
:)
_a
--
alex black, ceo
en...@tu...
the turing studio, inc.
http://www.turingstudio.com
vox+510.666.0074
fax+510.666.0093
|
|
From: Alex B. <en...@tu...> - 2001-06-29 17:25:08
|
> Alby Lash wrote: > > [==snip, snip ==] >> Personally, I don't really like the idea of multiple instances of BC as they >> will be duping the same utilities, however, I don't like the idea of complex > [== snip, snip ==] > > Me neither. The analogy is that I have to buy 18 Swiss Army Knives > for each of the 18 blades/screwdrivers/can opener/corkscrew/scissors/ > nail file/loupe/keyhole saw/tweezers/and-whatever-else, and then when I > climb > the Matterhorn, I have to take all 18 in my pocket, and use one > for each "task". Il n'y pas de sense de tout ca... moi aussi, So I think a "binarycloud core" sharing meahanism is in order. _a -- alex black, ceo en...@tu... the turing studio, inc. http://www.turingstudio.com vox+510.666.0074 fax+510.666.0093 |
|
From: Alex B. <en...@tu...> - 2001-06-29 17:22:20
|
> The server will host anywhere from 3-100 sites that won't be used very often > individually, but the server itself will have a decent amount of traffic > overall allowing me to install so many different sites on a single machine. > In addition, each site will have its own db instance - I am curious to see > how this pans out. Do you mean (for example) a separate instance of mysqld for each site? > Each site will be almost identical in structure and > functionality, with maybe a 10% variation between each site instance. So, my > goal is to obviously re-use as much code as possible for each site, allowing > them to share different modules, but also have an easy way of administering > the differences between each site. Sounds like you need make-make :) > Ok this site is using this set of interface components, ah - this site > doesn't use the common module for handling these objects, but the > specialized one I had to build for their unique situation, this db has this > extra table cell... OK I've got a new site to build let me click this button > and then change the preferences so that I can designate specialized modules > and db characteristics. > > I know this is way too specific to be of design use for BC in general, but I > thought it might help in considering some type of administration solution, > which I am going to start conceptualizing today and next week. Come > September BC2 will probably have all the kinks rolled out and I would be > psyched to contribute some administration stuff to the platform. Hopefully > by that time my php skills will be up to par. :?/ > [ Duh, what does $this->mean? ] You are correct, i.e. we will have some tools for administration of bc-specific stuff like users, roles, some config, etc. _alex -- alex black, ceo en...@tu... the turing studio, inc. http://www.turingstudio.com vox+510.666.0074 fax+510.666.0093 |
|
From: Alex B. <en...@tu...> - 2001-06-29 17:19:14
|
> First of all, you're not BC bashing by any means, and I think a bunch of us > on the list probably appreciate the example situations in which BC > will/does/or could operate. I agree that it is necessary that administration > services make our lives as web site developers easier when utilizing a > solution like BC that make redundant tasks unecessary. Exactly! > Personally, I don't really like the idea of multiple instances of BC as they > will be duping the same utilities, however, I don't like the idea of complex > dir trees for simple sites either, with a template here and a module there > in seemingly unrelated directories. So, I thought it might be possible to > implement a more-user-friendly (or was it a more perfect union??) schema. > Whereas the dir tree for BC _as it stands_ has been engineered for various > reasons, it doesn't quite fit with a comfortable administration structure, > could a front end be built for administering the sites that hides the > complexities behind the scenes? I disagree - the directory structure that you have to actually deal with on a daily basis is fairly simple: conf/ db/ htdocs/ lang/ lib/ mod/ roles/ tmpl/ and you can afford not to pay attention to half even of those. so, to support many sites, we need to be able to have the make system and Init recognize that there may be multiple, named user trees. > I could be fooling myself with this suggestion, but have always found that > even though many projects are mission critical, the future is so very > unforetold with software it helps to take the time and make administration > easier, even if it takes more time to code up. Agreed. I'd like to do that after the system has stopped moving. > I could volunteer to work on this type of thing, unfortunately I haven't > even come close to getting BC2 installed. I gave up my last linux box a > month ago to fun full speed on my current development, which I'll tell about > in my next email for its peculiar attributes with relation to BC2. Cool :) _a -- alex black, ceo en...@tu... the turing studio, inc. http://www.turingstudio.com vox+510.666.0074 fax+510.666.0093 |
|
From: Alex B. <en...@tu...> - 2001-06-29 17:17:20
|
oops!
forgot, sorry.
yes, you would need to modify that path.
and yes, I agree about having the makesile say "OY! no php command line! :)"
_alex
> Alex:
>
> What is the meaning of this error?:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> [root@localhost binarycloud]# pwd
> /usr/local/binarycloud
> [root@localhost binarycloud]# export BCHOME=/usr/local/binarycloud; make
> Building en site
> in user
> in user/htdocs
> in base
> in core
> in bldr
> in init
> make[2]: /usr/local/binarycloud/base/utils/processprepend.php: Command
> not foundmake[2]: *** [installprepend] Error 127
> in lib
> in mgr
> [root@localhost binarycloud]#
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Are you requiring us to have a php binary all compiled up
> and in /usr/local/php4/bin as dictated by the shebang
> in processorprepend.php, viz
>
> ---------------------------------------
> [root@localhost utils]# pwd
> /usr/local/binarycloud/base/utils
> [root@localhost utils]# head processprepend.php
> #!/usr/local/php4/bin/php -q
> <?php
> // {{{ Header
> /*
> * -File $Id: processprepend.php,v 1.3 2001/06/25 17:01:32 odysseas Exp
> $
> * -License LGPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html)
> * -Copyright 2001, Intacct Corp.
> * -Author odysseas tsatalos, ody...@ya...
> */
> // }}}
> [root@localhost utils]#
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Now I run RedHat 7.1, and php is in /usr/bin, so I edited the
> shebang to #!/usr/bin/php -q and got:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> [root@localhost binarycloud]# pwd
> /usr/local/binarycloud
> [root@localhost binarycloud]# export BCHOME=/usr/local/binarycloud; make
> Building en site
> in user
> in user/htdocs
> in base
> in core
> in bldr
> in init
> in lib
> in mgr
> [root@localhost binarycloud]#
> ---------------------------------------
>
> This might be useful for the people on the list that have
> had problems. I also suggest that, in the Makefile
> you test for the existence of files that you are going to use
> and either tell the user what is missing, or have the Makefile
> go out and find what is needed.....
>
> _jef
--
alex black, ceo
en...@tu...
the turing studio, inc.
http://www.turingstudio.com
vox+510.666.0074
fax+510.666.0093
|
|
From: Alex B. <en...@tu...> - 2001-06-29 17:15:27
|
> In my previous _long_ post about my administrative problems, > it just occurred to me that there seems to be a work-around > to organize the file tree, to do what I wanted. I haven't > checked it out yet, but see no reason not to use > > -/binarycloud/--+ > |-user--|-the_common_stuff_here > | > |-site1-|-mod--- > | | > |-tmpl--|-html--|-masters > |-layouts > |-site2-|-mod--- > | | > |-tmpl--|-html--|-masters > |-layouts > |-site3-|-mod--- > | | > |-tmpl--|-html--|-masters > |-layouts > > and then, in (as an example) index.php something > like the following stanza for templates > > 'templates' => array( > 'def' => array( > 'path' => > "../../site_name/tmpl/html/masters/main.3pane.tmpl", > 'type' => "html", > ), > '3pane' => array( > 'path' => > "../../site_name/tmpl/html/masters/main.3pane.tmpl", > 'type' => "html", > ), > '4pane' => array( > 'path' => > "../../site_name/tmpl/html/masters/main.4pane.tmpl", > 'type' => "html", > ), > ), > > and similarly, with layouts, do the old > > ../../site_name/tmpl/html/layouts/main.layout > > trick. Egh, I'd prefer to directly support what you need with make. Also, paths no longer exist in template of module paths :) say helooooo to import. > I donno. It makes me wonder about the "cost" of PHP/Apache doing > all that directory work all up and down the line. That is at least > six directory "searches" for each of those file includes. > > Any comments? As an aside, does anybody on this list (worry about)/havv > these administration concerns? _a -- alex black, ceo en...@tu... the turing studio, inc. http://www.turingstudio.com vox+510.666.0074 fax+510.666.0093 |
|
From: Alex B. <en...@tu...> - 2001-06-29 17:13:15
|
> Now, I don't yet have my arms around this new thingy, but
> I must express my happiness with make(1) being used, because
> I can add my own targets for "administrative" matters. FYI,
> I love make, and probably have 30 targets in typical
> makefiles for our site(s) administration.
Yessem :)
> Still, and I don't claim that you intended to solve my
> administrative problems with BC. But, I think that this
> email will be useful, again, to show what we, a small
> developer with about 40 sites, are up against.
> I suppose that there is a philosophical clash, as, to
> me, BC is designed with a mindset of it being for
> "one site", while youse guys say, "No, you make different
> sites with different modules" or some such.
>
> There is a wider context, and here it is. The file layout
> for us, is:
>
> --HTTPD_ROOT-- +
> |-site_name0-
> |-site_name1-
> |-site_name2-
>
> and so on, for each site, and with virtual servers pointing
> to site_nameN
>
> and for binarycloud:
>
> /usr/local/binarycloud/-+
> |-user--|-mod---|-site_name-
> |
> |-tmpl--|-html--|-masters
> |-layouts
I think much of this is moot, in the sense that I agree that we should
support multiple user/ directories in the make system, but at the moment we
don't.
If you want to do some stuff related to that, I'm happy to incorporate the
code :)
> With this structure I have some issues:
> 1. For the site-specific modules, it is OK because
> I can avoid name clashes with a subdirectory
> that is "accommodated" in BC.
> 2. For the masters, I feel cheated, because I have
> to add another subdirectory for each site.
> I am going to have, at least, one "main.tmpl"
> for each site. I DON'T WANT to name my
> templates main.acmecorp.tmpl, main.foobiz.tmpl
Exactly. Which is why you should have a separate user/ directory for each
site with a unique name.
> 3. For the layouts, the same problems exist as for
> the masters. We are going to have a _lot_ of
> layouts (our company is run by artists) and
> to avoid name clashes, I don't want to have
> to have
> page1.acmecorp.layout
> page7.xyxbiz.layout
> page3.foocompany.layout
> in one directory, ergo the subdir "necessity".
Yep, samep.
> 4. For the server root, it is as above, and there
> is "no problem"
> 5. Now for any site, with BC, there are at least
> two trees (minimum) to deal with for those
> administrative matters such as backing up,
> archiving, and using CVS. The minimum
> would be the HTTPD_ROOT/site_name and
> er, what the whole bloody BC user subtree.
> 6. How do I work at home, or even at work, with
> CVS, for example. With the present file
> layout, I have to have a module rooted at
> the webserver subdirectory site_name, this
> is OK. But where do I CVS to work on
> site-specific modules, or site-specific
> layouts, or site-specific templates?
> Do I have to bring over the whole bloody
> sub-tree starting at BC_PATH/user? I
> don't want all that.
You _do_ want all that, because it will all be different.
> 7. To solve the name clash problem, if I put site_name
> subdirectories under masters and layouts,
> I now have three sub-tree "units" for each
> site. Sure, I can consider these three
> sub-trees as a "site" in my backup planning,
> my CVS planning, my development server to
> production planning.
I think that would probably be a nightmare :)
> 8. BUT, some sites will use the "common modules"
> that we wish to develop. So, what do we
> do, I suppose establish a ./common subdir
> under ./user/mod, and make this a "node"
> for our administration needs. That way,
> I could CVS this sub-tree, backup this
> subtree, copy to production this subtree
> et cetera.
That would work. you can also run symlinks in cvsroot, so if you do a commit
on common in one directory, the change is reflected for all directories that
are linked.
> I donno, I don't have a plan yet. I may have to do
> some silliness with establishing symbolic links to
> reduce the complexity of administration, or something
> else.
I think it's just a question of "making make" aware of the fact that a
developer might want to have multiple user/trees.
> Can I take risks like overriding things like
> BC_PATH_USER or BC_PATH_MOD. I don't even want to
> go there, because you may break me in a future
> release.
Re: constants, probably not.
But again, I think the best way to do this is to explicitly support it,
rather than hack the system.
> I don't know if I am explaining my problems well. Be
> gentle, and try to understand that I want things
> to be easy to administrate, it is a huge, flippin'
> headache in everyday life. So, although I have not
> thought this out well, it seems that a way to
> reduce my problems would be
>
> -/binarycloud/--+
> |-user--|-the_common_stuff_here
> |
> |-site1-|-mod---
> | |
> |-tmpl--|-html--|-masters
> |-layouts
> |-site2-|-mod---
> | |
> |-tmpl--|-html--|-masters
> |-layouts
> |-site3-|-mod---
> | |
> |-tmpl--|-html--|-masters
> |-layouts
>
> Now, I only have 2 trees to deal with for a site (unless I
> want to work on the common_stuff, I can work at
> home and checkout things like:
> site1-bc (site1 tree above)
> site1-docroot (site1 in the server DOC_ROOT)
> bcuser (the common stuff)
> site23-bc
> site19-docroot
I recommend:
binarycloud/
site_name/
mod/
common/(foo)
tmpl/
html/
masters/
layouts/
site_name/
mod/
common/(foo)
tmpl/
html/
masters/
layouts/
etc.
> or archive these, or delete these, or move these.
> The above would require some ability of overiding
> system_constants, or integrate some true
> user (as in client, not BC user) definitions.
> Right now, in any index.php for defining a layout
> file, or a template file, I can't get above the
> html directory. For modules, I cannot get above
> ./user/mod.
>
> This is not whining. My estimation for BC remains
> high. It just seems like the anticipated great
> payoff of using BC is somehow diminished by a
> greater administrative load, besides the necessity
> to cd a lot because relative cd'ing is "broken".
Again, this is all just a metter of supporting the stuff you're talking
about.
The make system you're looking at supports only a single user/ tree. It
isn't that difficult to change the make system and some other code to
accommodate what you need, but in that last cvs snap you are not looking at
the solution :)
_a
--
alex black, ceo
en...@tu...
the turing studio, inc.
http://www.turingstudio.com
vox+510.666.0074
fax+510.666.0093
|
|
From: Andreas A. <a.a...@th...> - 2001-06-29 17:04:35
|
Cool, It works ! :-) But I don't understand the following. After running make there is the build dir with the language rips r2/binarycloud/build/en/ r2/binarycloud/build/da/ thats clear to me, but there are also: binarycloud/ htdocs/ Why that ? Under the language rips there are: htdocs/ user/ binarycould/ So far, so good. The second thing I don't understand is this: en/binarycould/lib/Timer.php en/binarycould/lib/binarycloud/lib/ClientSniffer.php The first line seems logical. The second kinda confusing. The bcp.xml files are also within htdoc of the language rips. Thought they're only used for make not for 'production'!? Andi |
|
From: Alex B. <en...@tu...> - 2001-06-29 17:03:11
|
> Urghhh... I feel lame asking this question. BUT what does one need to do in > order to get a basic install. I tried going into the binarycloud dir and > typing "make", but the errors seem to imply I need to do more than that ;-) I meant to post earlier this morning... :) You need these two variables in your ENV: PHPRC = path to directory with command-line php.ini BCHOME = /path/to/binarycloud/ For example: PHPRC=/home/alex/r2/tools/cli_php/ BCHOME=/home/alex/r2/binarycloud You must also be able to call php -q from the command line. > Also, does anyone have any good references to URLs, etc that explain > Makefiles and how to use them - especially in a context as it may apply to > r2. Odysseas, can you recommend any reading? > As you can probably tell, I don't really understand r2 yet (or anything that > deals with make), but I'm convinced it's really worth learning. So any help, > pointers, etc would be most appreciated. Thanks! Once you have those env's set, and you know you have php command line working, you should be fine: cd /path/to/binarycloud/ make :) -- alex black, ceo en...@tu... the turing studio, inc. http://www.turingstudio.com vox+510.666.0074 fax+510.666.0093 |
|
From: Alex B. <en...@tu...> - 2001-06-29 17:03:11
|
I haven't done the CVS synch yet, sorry. That will happen this weekend :) _alex > alex, > > is it ready in CVS...??? > I can't get any update from CVS source tree.... > > ronald > >> >> hi all, >> >> http://www.binarycloud.com/download/ >> >> for your downloading pleasure. >> >> This is r2, with make and the second revision of Page. >> >> have at it :) >> >> >> -- >> alex black, ceo >> en...@tu... >> >> the turing studio, inc. >> http://www.turingstudio.com >> >> vox+510.666.0074 >> fax+510.666.0093 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> binarycloud-dev mailing list >> bin...@li... >> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/binarycloud-dev > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > > _______________________________________________ > binarycloud-dev mailing list > bin...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/binarycloud-dev > -- alex black, ceo en...@tu... the turing studio, inc. http://www.turingstudio.com vox+510.666.0074 fax+510.666.0093 |
|
From: Alex B. <en...@tu...> - 2001-06-29 16:57:07
|
interwwesting -- alex black, ceo en...@tu... the turing studio, inc. http://www.turingstudio.com vox+510.666.0074 fax+510.666.0093 > To: <sit...@ro...> > Subject: GroupIT Engine > > I just saw this on http://newsforge.com/ - any opinions/remarks? > > Vastly improved Web site content management engine for PHP released > Thursday June 28, 07:21 PM EDT [ Press Releases ] > LinuxPR: "Digital Spinner, a web design and development company, > announced today the fourth release candidate of the GroupIT Engine, a > PHP-based content management and group collaboration system capable > of powering the next generation of web sites, intranets and > extranets. Notable new features include an improved installation > script, dynamic questionnaires, a re-designed default theme and a > suite of management conveniences. The entire source code for the > GroupIT Engine is available for download at http://www.groupit.org." |
|
From: Justin F. <je...@ey...> - 2001-06-29 13:14:22
|
Alby Lash wrote: [==snip, snip ==] > Personally, I don't really like the idea of multiple instances of BC as they > will be duping the same utilities, however, I don't like the idea of complex [== snip, snip ==] Me neither. The analogy is that I have to buy 18 Swiss Army Knives for each of the 18 blades/screwdrivers/can opener/corkscrew/scissors/ nail file/loupe/keyhole saw/tweezers/and-whatever-else, and then when I climb the Matterhorn, I have to take all 18 in my pocket, and use one for each "task". Il n'y pas de sense de tout ca... _jef -- Justin Farnsworth Eye Integrated Communications 321 South Evans - Suite 203 Greenville, NC 27858 | Tel: (252) 353-0722 |
|
From: Justin F. <je...@ey...> - 2001-06-29 11:49:42
|
Alby: Exactly! From what you wrote, you seem to have the same kind of "problem" in anticipated administration. Now, we too have a dream that is similar, BC offers the potential. It is no secret that "shopping" carts are becoming a commodity item, say. So, for our modest environment here in eastern NC, we want to be able to sell shopping carts on the cheap for everything from mom and pops to SOHO to medium size stores. These sites will not differ too much from one another in decoration or layout. You stepped out and said your sites will differ by 10 percent. Now I think that BC is a genius concept. What I want to be able to do is write a humungous Makefile where I can sit down with a "parts list" given to me by Marketing, and type one command line that does something on the order of: 1. creates a database and tables 2. populates the database with control data 3. selects a few GIF's that are scattered around in the shopping cart for site differentiation 4. creates the php files I need that uses the modules that I have specified from pre-established sets 5. establishes a SITE_ROOT directory with a correct, prestablished convention 6. edits my httpd.conf file 7. moves things to where they should be 8. anything else necessary which would carry this list to maybe 25 items Now I _will_ restart Apache by hand to preserve my dignity. The point is, BC will, or certainly has the potential to allow this, to make a shopping cart in 5 minutes and have it running in five minutes if I have done my DNS work. BUT, for this, I need for BC to stabilize in its file layout, and, and, and... that is why it may seem like I have been nitpicking on a genius conception for something as mundane as those silly, bloody administration tasks. After your post, I don't feel as alone... Also, if you are going to write some upper-level abstract "administration tool" to do what my Makefile would do, I want to talk to you after September... Especially if you write it with gtk. Regards, _jef ====================================================================== Alby Lash wrote: > > Another boring yet real-life example of why someone wants to use BC: > > The current project I'm working on is in beta / conceptual / demo stage > right now - meaning it does all that it _needs_ to do but not very well or > reliably. > > When I rebuild it, I am planning on using BC2, and that will probably be > sometime in September. So here's the deal: > > The server will host anywhere from 3-100 sites that won't be used very often > individually, but the server itself will have a decent amount of traffic > overall allowing me to install so many different sites on a single machine. > In addition, each site will have its own db instance - I am curious to see > how this pans out. Each site will be almost identical in structure and > functionality, with maybe a 10% variation between each site instance. So, my > goal is to obviously re-use as much code as possible for each site, allowing > them to share different modules, but also have an easy way of administering > the differences between each site. > > Ok this site is using this set of interface components, ah - this site > doesn't use the common module for handling these objects, but the > specialized one I had to build for their unique situation, this db has this > extra table cell... OK I've got a new site to build let me click this button > and then change the preferences so that I can designate specialized modules > and db characteristics. > > I know this is way too specific to be of design use for BC in general, but I > thought it might help in considering some type of administration solution, > which I am going to start conceptualizing today and next week. Come > September BC2 will probably have all the kinks rolled out and I would be > psyched to contribute some administration stuff to the platform. Hopefully > by that time my php skills will be up to par. :?/ > [ Duh, what does $this->mean? ] > > Alby Lash > al...@th... > > _______________________________________________ > binarycloud-dev mailing list > bin...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/binarycloud-dev -- Justin Farnsworth Eye Integrated Communications 321 South Evans - Suite 203 Greenville, NC 27858 | Tel: (252) 353-0722 |
|
From: Alby L. <al...@th...> - 2001-06-29 11:02:33
|
Another boring yet real-life example of why someone wants to use BC: The current project I'm working on is in beta / conceptual / demo stage right now - meaning it does all that it _needs_ to do but not very well or reliably. When I rebuild it, I am planning on using BC2, and that will probably be sometime in September. So here's the deal: The server will host anywhere from 3-100 sites that won't be used very often individually, but the server itself will have a decent amount of traffic overall allowing me to install so many different sites on a single machine. In addition, each site will have its own db instance - I am curious to see how this pans out. Each site will be almost identical in structure and functionality, with maybe a 10% variation between each site instance. So, my goal is to obviously re-use as much code as possible for each site, allowing them to share different modules, but also have an easy way of administering the differences between each site. Ok this site is using this set of interface components, ah - this site doesn't use the common module for handling these objects, but the specialized one I had to build for their unique situation, this db has this extra table cell... OK I've got a new site to build let me click this button and then change the preferences so that I can designate specialized modules and db characteristics. I know this is way too specific to be of design use for BC in general, but I thought it might help in considering some type of administration solution, which I am going to start conceptualizing today and next week. Come September BC2 will probably have all the kinks rolled out and I would be psyched to contribute some administration stuff to the platform. Hopefully by that time my php skills will be up to par. :?/ [ Duh, what does $this->mean? ] Alby Lash al...@th... |
5 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
