Форуми / Cotonti / Development / New PFS

<<<12345>>>

Building a new pfs

donP
#16 12.08.2010 18:00
I use Folder Storage Mode since LDU time!
I have 5Gb of files scattered between the 250 folders of my 250 active users! something like 10 thousands files! :O
I'll STOP upadating Cotonti (and probably I'll search for another CMF) if you'll change PFS to a NON FSM one!
This is a compatibility issue you must consider.
PFS actually isn't a plugin but a core part (every great CMS/CMF has it like a core part!), a very essential one, this is the reason we have to make it better... But we have to make webmaster life easy, not force them to rewrite all their websites everytime!

Second thing... have you considered that Siena would change all plugins API (this is another great reason I'm seriolusly thinking to migrate to a CMF that wouldn't force me to rewrite my own plugins and templates every time)?
Aren't you writing a traditional plugin that would be useless the next month?
in [color=#729FCF][b]BLUES[/b][/color] I trust
GHengeveld
#17 12.08.2010 23:03
I suggest allowing for more customization for the file name. This is probably best implemented by using a regular textfield and create a list of tags (s.a. timestamp, filename, userid). That way admins can determine the exact format for filenames.

Folder storage mode is something to keep in my opinion. Storing everything in one folder gives restrictions to the file upload (when multiple users attempt to upload a file with the same name). Also not having seperate folders makes it harder to keep the overview of files when using FTP for example. Keeping structure of files only in the database is not very neat.

A feature that is very welcome (in my opinion) is a synchronisation script, to sync the PFS database table with the actual files on the server (adding DB records for new files and removing orphan DB records for files that were removed by FTP). This will also allow admins to use bulk upload via FTP.
donP
#18 12.08.2010 23:16
Koradhil:
A feature that is very welcome (in my opinion) is a synchronisation script, to sync the PFS database table with the actual files on the server (adding DB records for new files and removing orphan DB records for files that were removed by FTP). This will also allow admins to use bulk upload via FTP.
Such a script was present in LDU 820 and disappeared in Seditio 1.0 :(
in [color=#729FCF][b]BLUES[/b][/color] I trust
Sergeich
#19 13.08.2010 00:06
A feature that is very welcome (in my opinion) is a synchronisation script, to sync the PFS database table with the actual files on the server (adding DB records for new files and removing orphan DB records for files that were removed by FTP). This will also allow admins to use bulk upload via FTP.
Good idea
Kingsley
#20 13.08.2010 02:57
I do not have any plug-in writing experience but I have my 2 cents.

PFS has been a issue for quite some time; no matter al promises that were made, it still is like the day I got in contact with Seditio.

Why don't you completely remake the pfs (dunno, but I expect it to be a lot of work)? Survey the community, and filter it to most requested features and what is doable. It should give you enough input to make every one a bit happier.

Oh, and hands off from folder storage mode. Wouldn't want it any other way :)
ez
#21 13.08.2010 05:41
relax you guys... foldermode is in... in fact it will be fixed (we love folders).
And a conversion script will be provided for the persons who are running not in that option.

more specs later.. goodnight
==- I say: Keep it EZ -==
Kort
#22 13.08.2010 15:51
Feels like you guys do not quite understand what and why you are going to do. Storage mode does not affect the way PFS works, you'll get stuck in URL rewriting, sharing & group access is not what everybody really wants. What else?
PFS only needs some really minor revamp:
- return orphan control (as Korandil noticed, it was present in LDU and then mystically disappeared)
- tag-based rename-on-upload faility with autorenaming files with identical names (see above)
- maybe add picture description field
Once PFS becomes a module (which is going to happen with Siena), make a clone and build an alternative. Anything else right now, especially playing with basic concepts to adjust PFS to your own plugins (which, I assume, is what this is all about) shall not be applied to what is being used by the majority of the Cotonti users community.
We are finishing our second, full-featured PFS-based gallery, and we do not have any serious problems with the PFS as it is now, so please keep everyone comfortable.
SED.by - создание сайтов, разработка плагинов и тем для Котонти
ez
#23 13.08.2010 16:23
@kort:
  • We will be compatible
  • This new plugin won't change important stuff (disable our plugin, and you have your old pfs)
  • We do understand what we are building (trust us)
  • We are not doing any url rewriting...
    that's something we do NOT want

About this folder storage mode:

I think everybody is reading this wrong, or we didn't explain enough.. see list above

This plugin will only work with FSM set ON (in the pfs settings).
So the option were every user has its own directory datas/users/<userid>/...files...

We will not support systems that have FSM OFF
(we will provide a conversion script to go to folder storage mode = ON mode)
If anybody has this script, let us know.... please

According to Trustmaster nobody is working on PFS..
So in Sienna it now is basically the same PFS ????

Hopefully this is enough info, we will make our functional/technical design first.
==- I say: Keep it EZ -==
donP
#24 13.08.2010 16:52
Nobody is working on PFS, right.
But Siena would have a totally different API for plugins (this is a pain in the ass for me and my self-ade plugins).
Have you had any informations from the developers about that new technology? I'm afraid you're working hard and you'd have to rework all your new plugin the day after you've finished it 'cause the new Siena Concept...
in [color=#729FCF][b]BLUES[/b][/color] I trust
ez
#25 13.08.2010 17:05
I am worried a bit about Sienna to... I do not know what changes for plugins there will be.
I asked this before in the forums: http://www.cotonti.com/forums.php?m=posts&p=24609
The real changes for pluginbuilders are not clear yet...

I think a lot off us have these self made plugins.. so we all have the same problem if it changes..
==- I say: Keep it EZ -==
donP
#26 13.08.2010 17:20
It was May when Trustmaster was saying like that:
Trustmaster:
We don't have final specifications for 0.9 and we won't have such at least until these changes are implemented...
Now we are ad the middle of August, and Milestone Siena 0.9 says "due in 3 weeks"... I wonder if final specifications for APIs still aren't definitive :/
in [color=#729FCF][b]BLUES[/b][/color] I trust
ez
#27 13.08.2010 17:25
this picture says it all:

==- I say: Keep it EZ -==
donP
#28 13.08.2010 17:56
Yes, I think we still are in bad waters... :(
in [color=#729FCF][b]BLUES[/b][/color] I trust
Trustmaster
#29 13.08.2010 20:56
A few things to make Siena gossips more clear:
  1. Yes, there will be changes for plugin and module developers. New APIs, new abilities, some refactoring.
  2. In most cases, converting a plugin from 0.6 to 0.9 is a matter of 15-60 minutes.
  3. There will be an ability to run old plugins through a compatibility layer which provides old functions and some old behavior.
  4. When 0.9.0 will be released, it still will be marked as unstable. For use on production sites we will still recommend Genoa, so 0.6.x will be supported at least until Siena becomes very stable (which may happen by 1.0). By that time we will solve all such problems as lack of documentation, plugins and critical bugs.
May the Source be with you!
Kort
#30 13.08.2010 21:33
donP How many "self-made" plugins would a site like yours require to call this "bad waters"?
SED.by - создание сайтов, разработка плагинов и тем для Котонти

<<<12345>>>