Re: [binarycloud-dev] Practical use of r2

[alex b. <en...@tu...>]

> Specifically, there is an existing open source project [ Ministry of
> Truth - http://mot.sourceforge.net ] that is no longer being actively
> maintained.  I am giving serious thought to picking up development
> because I've not found any other software that fills the same niche,
> and because I've spoken with the original author who has encouraged me to
> do so. The problem with this is that I am not comfortable with the way its
> idea/essence is currently implemented, and would really want to rebuild it
> from the ground up (the TODO and feature list is long, and it seems
pointless
> to try re-inventing the wheel with what's there).  For those that don't
> care to visit the website, MOT currently allows one to group db
tables/fields
> relationally into larger more useful things (e.g project tracking,
> hardware/software inventory, etc.), all without having to know anything
about
> html/php/sql (given that it was originally written in 1998 and includes
its
> own built-in XML parser, it's still an impressive and usable piece of
> software).

Sounds cool.
Also sounds like it has great potential for integration with metabase,
because of metabase's xml schema definition format.

> r2 would appear to be a candidate for a new MOT framework (other
> possibilites might be Horde [ http://www.horde.org/ ]), but I have
concerns
> about how to create a distributable "product" based on it (MOT will
continue
> to be strictly GPL, of course).  I'm having difficulty envisoning how I
> would incorporate it in such a way as to minimize the setup requirements
for
> my user base.  For some, getting Apache and PHP installed is enough of a
> hurdle (not everyone uses .rpm or .deb based systems).  Would I say "you
> need Apache, PHP (plus all it's special dependencies), and r2 .. after you
> fight with that, you use MOT as a plug-in", or is there a recommended way
I
> could easily encapsulate r2's overhead into my configuration system?  I
would
> like to be able to say "Here's MOT.  Run the installer." once they have
> met the Apache/PHP requirement.

Oh, yeah, you could do that. It would require you to set up a stable config
you like of r2, do a build from the source tree, and distribute the build
tree with your installer.

It's entirely doable, keep in mind that the current r2 codebase is in
development, so it's not exactly focused on simple installation :)

> Second, how viable is r2 as a development platform right now?  Obviously
> it's still under heavy development, but is it becoming mature enough to
> start building production-quality applications?  I expect that it will
take

It's ready, now.
However: you will not have access to some of the more advanced tools that
will be available for the system in the next month or so. (EntityManager,
QueryManager, TableBuilder, FormBuilder)

> me a few weeks to spec out what I will include as part of the initial
rewrite
> of MOT (its existing functionality plus a subset of the TODO), so my
question
> is more focused on the "stable" parts of r2.  In other words, which
> components of MOT can I concentrate on re-implementing now using the least
> changing parts of r2?  The website/documentation doesn't give a clear
> indication of what's complete and what's not.. guess I can always dive
> in and find out though.

The module spec and page render pipeline are both mature. What remains is
extensions to the make system, and integrating managers + builders.

> Looking at the mailing list archives, I see that some of my questions
> are answered (lots of recommendations from Alex to use r2 over r1 at this
> point).  The recent "BC quick-start guide" thread is helpful, but I don't
> see anyone trying to use BC for something like this (most uses seem to be
> for custom website projects rather than a self-contained, portable web
> application).  Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct, but the system is designed to support any php app, so you
won't have a problem.

> Just to be clear, I'm not in a major hurry here.  If I was, then I would
go
> ahead and consider r1 and worry about the conversion issues later.  I get
> the feeling though that I will be able to plan my goals around r2's
> development cycle, and that enough of r2 is complete now.  It would be

Yes, you are correct.
R2, even at this stage, is more mature than r1. r1, while is is a functional
system, is almost an experiement: most of the code is procedural, the tools
aren't mature, etc.

R2 is much more heavily "designed" and while some of the code is still a
moving target, the system is stable and partially functional. You can build
modules for it, now.

> helpful to have some idea on the overall status and usability of specific
r2
> sections (documentation on all this once r2 is finished is great, but I
> would still like to start developing now), and I would appreciate general
> feedback from anyone who is currently using it to do productive things.
>
> Thanks in advance (I tried getting subscribed to bc-general to post
> this there instead, but sourceforge seems to be eating my confirmations
> at the moment).  Also, the BC website still states that bc-dev is for dev
> and support.  Apologies if this isn't the best place for my inquiry.

Heh, I shoud change that :)

These sorts of discussions are relevant here, btw.

:)

_a