Thread: [Modeling-users] Roadmap to 0.9
Status: Abandoned
Brought to you by:
sbigaret
Menu
▾
▴
modeling-users
|
From: Sebastien B. <sbi...@us...> - 2003-04-19 16:36:00
|
Hi all,
I wish to end with the everlasting wait for 0.9 and release it monday
april, 28th.
The steps that I think need to be fulfilled until then are:
- Fix bugs: #710817, #710913
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=3D58935&atid=3D4893=
35
- Possibly fix bug #711817, or change the documentation
- ModelMasons:
+ refactor the package - status: done on my HD, needs to be checked-in
I'd like someone to double check that there is no remaining bug
when this is checked-in, so I'll be grateful if someone could find
some time next week, after it's committed to cvs, to check on his
own project(s) that the new scheme is working right.
+ propose an alternate scheme for python-code generation: i.e. with
base classes <EntityName>Base, as previously discussed on the
list.
Status: almost done (cf. patch proposed by Jerome, april, 27th)
needs to be integrated and committed
https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=3D1888241&forum_id=
=3D10674
- EditingContext: include refaultObject()
status: proposed a patch on the ml
https://sf.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=3D1884326&forum_id=3D10674
Has anyone used this for real?
- regarding bug #614261
https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=3D1795493&forum_id=
=3D10674
Can someone using MySQL confirm that this eliminates that kind of
errors? I'll close the bug item, then.
I know we were supposed to freeze features until 0.9 final, but I'm
convinced that the few added things can be useful for others.
Please comment and tell if you think I missed something, I was
offline for quite a time and I could have easily forgotten one point
or another.
Cheers,
-- S=E9bastien.
|
|
From: Yannick G. <ygi...@yg...> - 2003-04-19 16:41:19
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 19 April 2003 12:35, Sebastien Bigaret wrote: > Please comment and tell if you think I missed something, I was > offline for quite a time and I could have easily forgotten one point > or another. Is XML-Model "compilation" for 0.9 or just for sometimes later ? - -- Yannick Gingras Coder for OBB : Ominous Brittle Baby-sitter http://OpenBeatBox.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+oXwqrhy5Fqn/MRARAu/dAJ42nNAc39x2f73F1viB+BJWcyT8jACcC32T BAVrdkHPOlApsUQPry7KzRA= =66w2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: Sebastien B. <sbi...@us...> - 2003-04-19 17:31:00
|
Yannick Gingras <ygi...@yg...> writes: > On Saturday 19 April 2003 12:35, Sebastien Bigaret wrote: > > Please comment and tell if you think I missed something, I was > > offline for quite a time and I could have easily forgotten one point > > or another. >=20 > Is XML-Model "compilation" for 0.9 or just for sometimes later ? Definitely: yes; the script is almost finished, based on the one sent on the list earlier, at: https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=3D1683824&forum_id= =3D10674 Thanks for reminding me of it! -- S=E9bastien. |
|
From: Mario R. <ma...@ru...> - 2003-04-20 12:12:44
|
Welcome back Sebastien! To the list of things to do for 0.9 i'd only like to add: - consistency check of the UserGuide for the new features of 0.9 - add 1-web-page example, using perhaps the StoreEmployees model. An issue that probably should be resolved before 0.9 is the name of the framework. This implies a lot, though... The new feature of having the possibility to define a Model directly in python is for another release. Regards, mario |
|
From: <so...@la...> - 2003-04-20 12:25:04
|
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 02:12:40PM +0200, Mario Ruggier wrote: > Welcome back Sebastien! > > To the list of things to do for 0.9 i'd only like to add: > - consistency check of the UserGuide for the new features of 0.9 Yeap this is important i think > - add 1-web-page example, using perhaps the StoreEmployees model. This should be on the first page > An issue that probably should be resolved before 0.9 is the name of > the framework. This implies a lot, though... This should be for 1.0 no ? > The new feature of having the possibility to define a Model directly > in python is for another release. /Enjoy :) |
|
From: Sebastien B. <sbi...@us...> - 2003-04-20 13:05:29
|
> To the list of things to do for 0.9 i'd only like to add: > - consistency check of the UserGuide for the new features of 0.9 > - add 1-web-page example, using perhaps the StoreEmployees model. I agree with you and soif, this is important. > An issue that probably should be resolved before 0.9 is the name of > the framework. This implies a lot, though... 1.0 hopefully ;) > The new feature of having the possibility to define a Model directly > in python is for another release. Planned in the 0.9 series (after the question by soif asking for a long-term planning, I'll comment on the 0.9 series later) Last addition: I remember Yannick Gingras saying that it can be useful to be able to comment on a model -- 1.0 will add a comment attribute in Model, Entity, Attribute and Relationship. -- S=E9bastien. |
|
From: Sebastien B. <sbi...@us...> - 2003-04-21 14:47:29
|
Mario wrote: > > An issue that probably should be resolved before 0.9 is the name of > > the framework. This implies a lot, though... >=20 > 1.0 hopefully ;) I did not read you right, I initially read *after* 0.9 Should we choose and apply the new name for 0.9? It seems unreasonable to m= e, we have ~one week and yes, this implies a lot. -- S=E9bastien. |
|
From: Mario R. <ma...@ru...> - 2003-04-22 10:22:17
|
> Mario wrote: >>> An issue that probably should be resolved before 0.9 is the name of >>> the framework. This implies a lot, though... >> >> 1.0 hopefully ;) > > I did not read you right, I initially read *after* 0.9 Well, in my opinion the longer one uses a name the harder it is to=20 change it. So, the sooner the better. But, it implies a lot of little changes, and=20= it is up to you as whether it should be done now or not. Is there a pressing=20 deadline for 0.9, or is the date fixed arbitrarily? mario > Should we choose and apply the new name for 0.9? It seems unreasonable=20= > to me, > we have ~one week and yes, this implies a lot. > > -- S=E9bastien. |
|
From: Sebastien B. <sbi...@us...> - 2003-04-22 17:34:35
|
Mario Ruggier <ma...@ru...> writes: > > Mario wrote: > >>> An issue that probably should be resolved before 0.9 is the name of > >>> the framework. This implies a lot, though... > >> > >> 1.0 hopefully ;) > > > > I did not read you right, I initially read *after* 0.9 >=20 > Well, in my opinion the longer one uses a name the harder it is to change= it. > So, the sooner the better. But, it implies a lot of little changes, and i= t is > up to > you as whether it should be done now or not. Is there a pressing deadline > for 0.9, or is the date fixed arbitrarily? No pressing deadline, it's just that we already have a one-month drift wrt = the initial planning :\ I'll try to summarize the "little changes" and I'll get back on the subje= ct then. We also have the former name proposals in the archives, they can be easily collected. -- S=E9bastien. |
|
From: Yannick G. <ygi...@yg...> - 2003-04-20 13:26:27
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 20 April 2003 09:05, Sebastien Bigaret wrote: > Last addition: I remember Yannick Gingras saying that it can be > useful to be able to comment on a model -- 1.0 will add a comment > attribute in Model, Entity, Attribute and Relationship. Woohoo ! : D - -- Yannick Gingras Coder for OBB : Obese Barehanded Bse http://OpenBeatBox.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+op/+rhy5Fqn/MRARAp6rAJ0Wm28MuQaLkWDarJvq4GeBBBBNdwCfVXCL IVjAJYJ4kRsWUk8Mk4ngRus= =NPQH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: Sebastien B. <sbi...@us...> - 2003-04-22 09:57:44
|
Yannick Gingras <ygi...@yg...> writes: > On Sunday 20 April 2003 09:05, Sebastien Bigaret wrote: > > Last addition: I remember Yannick Gingras saying that it can be > > useful to be able to comment on a model -- 1.0 will add a comment > > attribute in Model, Entity, Attribute and Relationship. >=20 > Woohoo ! >=20 Obviously I meant 0.9, and this is now done in the CVS (Modeling and ZModelizationTool updated) -- S=E9bastien. |
|
From: Mario R. <ma...@ru...> - 2003-04-22 10:31:22
|
While we are making changes to the model... ;) - I really do not like having the connectionDictionary written out all=20= over the place in xml files, some of which generated and copied around. Is it possible to externalize this? (Maybe I am missing something?) The connDict should at maximum be written on disk only once (this will automatically be possibly with PyModels...). Also (a different request) passwords should not be written in the clear. Is it possible to send encrypted passwords to the db server? - Another minor request, that can wait; would it be possible to make entity/@name the default for both entity/@className and=20 entity/@externalName, should these two not be specified in the XML model? mario On mardi, avr 22, 2003, at 11:57 Europe/Amsterdam, Sebastien Bigaret=20 wrote: > Yannick Gingras <ygi...@yg...> writes: >> On Sunday 20 April 2003 09:05, Sebastien Bigaret wrote: >>> Last addition: I remember Yannick Gingras saying that it can be >>> useful to be able to comment on a model -- 1.0 will add a comment >>> attribute in Model, Entity, Attribute and Relationship. >> >> Woohoo ! >> > > Obviously I meant 0.9, and this is now done in the CVS (Modeling and > ZModelizationTool updated) > > -- S=E9bastien. |
|
From: Sebastien B. <sbi...@us...> - 2003-04-23 10:25:34
|
Hi,
Mario Ruggier <ma...@ru...> writes:
> While we are making changes to the model... ;)
>=20
> - I really do not like having the connectionDictionary written out all ov=
er
> the place in xml files, some of which generated and copied around.
> Is it possible to externalize this? (Maybe I am missing something?)
> The connDict should at maximum be written on disk only once (this
> will automatically be possibly with PyModels...).
You're right. In fact there is also a problem with PyModels: they will
contain passwords, and be installed in the standard python path. By
default, installation will make them world-readable, which is not good
either.
I suggest a env. variable poiting to a specific init-file read by
ConfigParser and changing the models' connection dictionary when they
are loaded --see tests.utils.parseConfigFile_and_updateModel() and
tests/test.cfg for an example of this technique.
Does it sound reasonable? This can be easily done, and it will meet
the exact requirements you're pointing out. I guess we can make it
happen for 0.9.
> Also (a different request) passwords should not be written in the clear.
> Is it possible to send encrypted passwords to the db server?
I've no idea -- if somebody knows what is possible w/ postgresql and
mysql, please tell. Otherwise we'll have to search the official
docs. I suggest for we forget this for 0.9, though. Could you fill in
a RFE?
> - Another minor request, that can wait; would it be possible to make
> entity/@name the default for both entity/@className and entity/@externalN=
ame,
> should these two not be specified in the XML model?
It's not difficult at all (it's already done in the ZModeler). Now I
wonder whether it is a good idea to change a model while loading it at
runtime. Dunno why, but this hurts me a little for xml files, however it
seems to make sense for the coming pymodels... Oh well, I'm confused
now, let's think a little more about it.
BTW: the default for entity/@className would preferably be
Entity.externalNameForInternalName(entity/@name)
Cheers,
-- S=E9bastien.
|
|
From: Mario R. <ma...@ru...> - 2003-04-24 12:00:51
|
On mercredi, avr 23, 2003, at 12:25 Europe/Amsterdam, Sebastien Bigaret=20= wrote: > Hi, > > Mario Ruggier <ma...@ru...> writes: >> While we are making changes to the model... ;) >> >> - I really do not like having the connectionDictionary written out=20 >> all over >> the place in xml files, some of which generated and copied around. >> Is it possible to externalize this? (Maybe I am missing something?) >> The connDict should at maximum be written on disk only once (this >> will automatically be possibly with PyModels...). > > You're right. In fact there is also a problem with PyModels: they=20 > will > contain passwords, and be installed in the standard python path. By > default, installation will make them world-readable, which is not=20 > good > either. Yes, definately a problem. > I suggest a env. variable poiting to a specific init-file read by > ConfigParser and changing the models' connection dictionary when they > are loaded --see tests.utils.parseConfigFile_and_updateModel() and > tests/test.cfg for an example of this technique. > > Does it sound reasonable? This can be easily done, and it will meet > the exact requirements you're pointing out. I guess we can make it > happen for 0.9. Would be wonderful way to go. This case will also make encrypting of password less necessary. >> Also (a different request) passwords should not be written in the=20 >> clear. >> Is it possible to send encrypted passwords to the db server? > > I've no idea -- if somebody knows what is possible w/ postgresql and > mysql, please tell. Otherwise we'll have to search the official > docs. I suggest for we forget this for 0.9, though. Could you fill = in > a RFE? Do not know what the db's support. Can wait, and may even not be necessary with the scheme proposed above. But I will fill a request... >> - Another minor request, that can wait; would it be possible to make >> entity/@name the default for both entity/@className and=20 >> entity/@externalName, >> should these two not be specified in the XML model? > > It's not difficult at all (it's already done in the ZModeler). Now I > wonder whether it is a good idea to change a model while loading it at > runtime. Dunno why, but this hurts me a little for xml files, however=20= > it > seems to make sense for the coming pymodels... Oh well, I'm confused > now, let's think a little more about it. This can definately wait. > BTW: the default for entity/@className would preferably be > Entity.externalNameForInternalName(entity/@name) > > > Cheers, > > -- S=E9bastien. mario |
|
From: Sebastien B. <sbi...@us...> - 2003-05-07 11:39:32
|
Hi,
Mario Ruggier <ma...@ru...> writes:
[...]
> > I suggest a env. variable poiting to a specific init-file read by
> > ConfigParser and changing the models' connection dictionary when they
> > are loaded --see tests.utils.parseConfigFile_and_updateModel() and
> > tests/test.cfg for an example of this technique.
> >
> > Does it sound reasonable? This can be easily done, and it will meet
> > the exact requirements you're pointing out. I guess we can make it
> > happen for 0.9.
>=20
> Would be wonderful way to go. This case will also make encrypting
> of password less necessary.
Okay, this is now available from the main trunk in CVS, will be in next
release.
Usage: set the environment variable MDL_DB_CONNECTIONS_CFG to the path
of a configuration file, say /full/path/to/mydbconf.cfg
This is an ini-like file, parsed by ConfigParser, like:
---------------
[DEFAULT]
host: localhost
=20=20=20=20
[ModelName_1]
user: user_1
password: pwd_1
=20=20=20=20
[ModelName_2]
adaptor: MySQL
user: user_2
password: pwd_2
---------------
Now you can remove the user & password from your model (ie the .xml/.py/
pickled one), and instead put them in a single file.
The special field 'adaptor' can be used to override the model's
adaptorName.
Last, it is an error to set this env.var. when the file does not exist.
Enjoy! Cheers,
-- S=E9bastien.
|
|
From: <so...@la...> - 2003-04-20 12:16:55
|
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 06:35:51PM +0200, Sebastien Bigaret wrote: > > Hi all, > > I wish to end with the everlasting wait for 0.9 and release it monday > april, 28th. > > The steps that I think need to be fulfilled until then are: > > - Fix bugs: #710817, #710913 > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=58935&atid=489335 I've bugfixed #710817 in my previous patch . > - Possibly fix bug #711817, or change the documentation I hope you will find time to fix that :) I'm waiting for that since a long time :) > - ModelMasons: > > + refactor the package - status: done on my HD, needs to be checked-in > > I'd like someone to double check that there is no remaining bug > when this is checked-in, so I'll be grateful if someone could find > some time next week, after it's committed to cvs, to check on his > own project(s) that the new scheme is working right. > > + propose an alternate scheme for python-code generation: i.e. with > base classes <EntityName>Base, as previously discussed on the > list. > > Status: almost done (cf. patch proposed by Jerome, april, 27th) > needs to be integrated and committed > https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=1888241&forum_id=10674 I will wait until you comit this to the CVS. send a mail when it's done. I will check this as soon as possible but i will be off next week (Tuesday -> Saturday) > - EditingContext: include refaultObject() > status: proposed a patch on the ml > https://sf.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=1884326&forum_id=10674 > > Has anyone used this for real? I don't :( > > I know we were supposed to freeze features until 0.9 final, but I'm > convinced that the few added things can be useful for others. > > Please comment and tell if you think I missed something, I was > offline for quite a time and I could have easily forgotten one point > or another. We talk about the partial dispose too, but i think we will work on that for 1.0 Could you please tell us about your release plan (for long time) ? Enjoy :) -- PS for Sebastien : May we talk in real life when are you free ? |
|
From: Mario R. <ma...@ru...> - 2003-04-20 12:33:30
|
I think the partial dispose os what the refaultObject() is about. Ah, terminology! >> - EditingContext: include refaultObject() >> status: proposed a patch on the ml >> https://sf.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=1884326&forum_id=10674 >> >> Has anyone used this for real? > I don't :( > We talk about the partial dispose too, but i think we will work on > that for 1.0 |
|
From: Sebastien B. <sbi...@us...> - 2003-04-20 13:14:32
|
Mario Ruggier <ma...@ru...> wrote: > I think the partial dispose os what the refaultObject() is about. >=20 > Ah, terminology! >=20 > >> - EditingContext: include refaultObject() > >> status: proposed a patch on the ml > >> https://sf.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=3D1884326&forum_id=3D10= 674 > >> > >> Has anyone used this for real? > > I don't :( >=20 > > We talk about the partial dispose too, but i think we will work on > > that for 1.0 Right: refaultObject() is definitely the first step towards "partial dispose", in fact it is a major part of the forthcoming ability for an EditingContext to hold <n> fully initialized objects at most, when possible. I do not want to include 'refaultObject()' in 0.9 unless some testing is done in the meantime. I'm pretty sure myself that I wont have the time for this. -- S=E9bastien. |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X