[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Fwd: Re: [translate-pootle] Wordforge]



Gintautas Miliauskas <gintas@akl.lt> writes:

I won't quote your message since I'll basically do a braindump like
you did previously.

I fully agree with you that we should avoid to store data directly on
files also because if we later discover another format will be very
difficult to reuse old data and we'll need to make converters for
it. So, let does it from basic design.

I like the idea to RDBMS is the way to store the data and the "final"
format (po or whatever) should be build just as a product of it. Also,
I agree about the idea to have a "server layer" between the client and
backend because it makes trivial for user to use the backend without
much hassle and without the need to control locks and whatever of
internal details of it.

One thing that come to my mind just now is that we might have the
following design:

               |--------------------------------------|
               |         |        Pootle itself       |
               | Clients |----------------------------|
               |         | Pootle compatibility layer |
               |--------------------------------------|
               |  XML-RPC server   |  Other servers   |
               |--------------------------------------|
               |       API to access the data         |
               |--------------------------------------|
               |            RDMS with data            |
               |--------------------------------------|

With that in mind I realise that might be easier to get colaboration
of Pootle people since they can help us to design the layers bellow of
their compatibility layer and at same time improve their system in a
easier way without the needed careful to don't brake our system. So,
with that we both are basically free and able to help each other.

The only drawback on it that I can see is that we won't contribute
much code back to Pootle directly. Basically fixes to get it more
"backend agnostic" and then plug our backend there. That, IMHO, is a
good conseguence since they'll be free to choose and develop other
backends without the compromise to us just one.

What's your point of view about this?

-- 
        O T A V I O    S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
 E-mail: otavio@debian.org      UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058     GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."



Reply to: