Izhar Firdaus wrote:
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 11:50 PM, John (J5) Palmieri <johnp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Sat, 2008-03-29 at 22:44 +0800, Izhar Firdaus wrote: > On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 9:01 PM, John (J5) Palmieri <johnp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote > > > Or do J5 have different view about this?, both idea ( improve MyFedora > > > / improve PackageDB ) sounds okay to me, just that I feel that if > > > MyFedora implements those features, PackageDB and the effort made for > > > it previously would be rendered of no-use (or perhaps thats what one > > > of MyFedora's goal - to obsolete packagedb ) .. > > > > There is a balance here. For everything I have to pull from there is a > > cost in terms of calls I have to make to different backends per page > > along with the extra work to recreate the GUI for each module. The > > different backends are taking a tools centric approach to manipulating > > data where as My Fedora takes a more data centric approach (here is the > > data how would I like to manipulate and display). I agree the data side > > In other words, instead of calling interfaces provided by these > backends (which is, obviously, more costly) , MyFedora will be > directly access the databases and manipulate the data to be in a more > user-centric and useful views (am I right?). I generally do not want to talk to a DB directly though if performance becomes an issue I might have to. Generally it goes MyFedora <-json-> mfquery proxy <-json/xmlrpc etc.-> Fedora Resource <-db connection-> DB. MyFedora but it would take longer and I would have to replicate the logic for determining if a user is allowed to modify. If it changed in bodhi MyFedora would be out of sync and the user would be presented with inconstant UI. > > of it should be part of PackageDB but unless someone really wants to > > work on a separate PackageDB UI I would just have that be a simple dump > > of the database in a slightly nicer form. > >In your opinion, which would be better? a project which adds value to PackageDB or a project which focuses on the PackageDB related integration with MyFedora ?
PackageDB. But I'm the packagedb author :-)My reasoning is that what we need to do centers around getting the data from the rpms and users into a database. MyFedora may pull that information as raw data or it may directly import the interface that the packagedb provides but that data belongs in the packagedb. So that's the more important area.
Also, some of the rewriting of the PakcageDB UI that MyFedora might want to do should be done in the PackageDB instead. The current UI could really do with a user interface designer's criticism nad mockups to make it better.
-Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
