Re: bugfix or enhancement? losing scheduler jobs after paste, rename url

[Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>]

On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 16:05 +0200, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
> simon litwan wrote:
> > hi list
> > 
> > i'm working on a customers request about losing jobs after paste/rename
> > url. they wish the scheduled jobs should move with document. but they
> > also would be satisfied with a warning on the paste/rename screen that
> > the jobs will get lost.
> 
> [...]
> 
> That's a good example for a problem caused by mixing concerns -
> document storage and site structure. If they were separated, the
> problem would not occur. I suggest that we reconsider storing documents
> in a non-structured way and implement site structures as views on the
> document repository.
> 

Like I understand the problem: simon wants to move the documents and it
would be best that the associated jobs as well would be moved, right?

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=103992708800001&r=1&w=2

When linking the docs in jobs.xml with input modules then that is
possible.

I agree with Andreas that we should implement site structures as views
on the document repository.

salu2
-- 
thorsten

"Together we stand, divided we fall!" 
Hey you (Pink Floyd)


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lenya.apache.org

Re: bugfix or enhancement? losing scheduler jobs after paste, rename url

[Andreas Hartmann <an...@apache.org>]

Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 16:05 +0200, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
> 
>>simon litwan wrote:
>>
>>>hi list
>>>
>>>i'm working on a customers request about losing jobs after paste/rename
>>>url. they wish the scheduled jobs should move with document. but they
>>>also would be satisfied with a warning on the paste/rename screen that
>>>the jobs will get lost.
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>That's a good example for a problem caused by mixing concerns -
>>document storage and site structure. If they were separated, the
>>problem would not occur. I suggest that we reconsider storing documents
>>in a non-structured way and implement site structures as views on the
>>document repository.
>>
> 
> 
> Like I understand the problem: simon wants to move the documents and it
> would be best that the associated jobs as well would be moved, right?
> 
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=103992708800001&r=1&w=2
> 
> When linking the docs in jobs.xml with input modules then that is
> possible.

The key is - as Michi pointed out - a facility to map unique, constant
IDs to documents. Unless we have that, we'd have to add a job-moving
functionality to the scheduler, which is IMO overkill. Re-writing the
URLs in jobs.xml directly violates the job store encapsulation.
I'm -1 to change the current behaviour in 1.2 (unless someone wants to
extend the scheduler), maybe we can add a message like

   "Please check the subtree for scheduled jobs as they will get
    lost after moving."

-- Andreas


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@lenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@lenya.apache.org