[Zope-CMF] Re: proposal for cmf:indexable directive
computer-project at hotmail.co.uk
Tue Sep 13 16:14:18 EDT 2005
I've a question: why declare the specific attributes for
indexing/metadata at all? I couldn't see what binds the cmf:indexable
declaration to a particular adapter in the example, so I was wondering
if we could do without. Suppose we had an adapter like:
where ICatalogVariables defines a single method that returns a dict of
properties and values to index. (FWIW I put an implementation of this
interface in the tracker a while ago (#378) plus some code to expose
plone's indexing registry as this interface.) It could even define a
second method that indicated the available properties.
The catalog could work out everything that provides the
ICatalogVariables interface, and calculate the properties to index. It
will already index/record them as metadata if they have been added as
metadata/indexes in the catalog, so not sure what all this declaration
really buys us.
It does get us some cool stuff if we want to automatically set up
indexes using the configuration or check that indexes/metadata exist in
the catalog. But wouldn't the index configuration be part of a CMFSetup
profile? In which case it would start living in two places, which could
get confusing. Also, wouldn't having something that sets indexes up
automatically cause a conflict when you need to add a new type of index
to optimise out a hotspot?
Having seen data go into the catalog, out the other side and into the
bin when I've forgotten the index, some way of checking thar
indexes/metadata exist would be useful. But perhaps it's preferable to
log this to the event log or something, rather than add new directives?
I'm not clear about what the pros and cons are of new directives vs.
using code, perhaps someone with more experience has some ideas?
Anyway, just some thoughts. It would be good to really get the catalog
to be a 'service' with hooks that things can register with in a simple
way, rather than having to do quite so much to wire them in.
> here is a sketch of how a working "indexable" configuration would look.
> Names subject to improvement.
> <configure xmlns="http://namespaces.zope.org/cmf"
> metadata='folder_order' />
> <!-- or this for interface lovers --/>
> metadata='IContentMetadataAttrs' />
> Our primary goal was is to be able to catalog non-direct
> attributes as both indexes and metadata. This straight forward to
> Eventually, I think it makes sense, as content gets happily dumber, that
> all indexing should work this way.
> For backward compatibility, a default adapter could return direct attrs
> from an object for indexing.
> provides="IDefaultIndexable, IDefaultMetadata"
> metadata='*' />
> Ultimately, if you didn't need back compatibility, you could override
> like this:
> metadata='None' />
> then developers could determine class by class and interface by
> interface (and perhaps even by event) what was called when an object is
> indexed, thus lowering the overhead of cataloging.
> Some other niceties come to mind when thinking about this that may not
> be inially easily attainable; the main two are installation of indexes
> via configuration and the validation of index existence by the
> cmf:indexable handler.
> I look forward to y'alls comments.
> Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF at lists.zope.org
> See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
More information about the Zope-CMF