Re: Where we are going with 1.3

[Charley Tiggs <..hidden..>]

Chris Travers wrote:
> > > 1)  There is some debate (so far, over IRC) over whether to move
> > > templates into the database,
> > > PRO:
> > >   a)  makes for easier security because we can have full ACL-based support
> > A couple of pros to add here:
> >
> > 1) backup.  Backup your database back up your templates.
> > 2) ability to use RESTful or other such interfaces to create your own
> > means of editing templates.  This enables developers to create
> > simplified interfaces that allow their customers to edit/create
> > templates as needed.
>
> I am not entirely sure why database storage is necessary for RESTful
> access.  I.e. RESTful defines how the client and web server
> communicate, and that has nothing to do with how the web server
> handles the request or where the data is stored.

Okay, I've just revealed that I have no idea what RESTful means.  My 
point is that, given that the templates are stored in the DB, I can 
create my own interface using my language of choice to edit those 
templates.  If the templates are built in such a manner that it's fairly 
easy to recognize variables, sections, etc, I can keep clients who are 
not as technically savvy from making a mess of things but give them a 
little more control than they would normally have.  Of course, we could 
do the same thing from the file system, but that means making sure 
permissions are set on the files and folders involved.


> > 3) portability.  Want to move from one host to another, dump your db and
> > import on new host.  No need to worry about moving template files.
>
> Ok, I see that there are places where this might be an advantage.  But
> portability here does not equal cross-platform (i.e. the big issues
> with EOLs etc still remain).

I didn't say it's perfect.  You're not gonna be able to make it perfect 
for everyone anyways.

> > 4) one less resource on the file system where less technically savvy
> > folks installing Ledger will need to know how to set file permissions.
> >
> > > CON:
> > >   a)  makes it harder to edit using a basic text editor.
> > I'm not sure this is a con.  With all the interface changes you're
> > making to take advantage of more modern tech, perhaps consider including
> > one of the browser based WYSIWYG editors for this?  I'm betting that
> > most users will only need to change basic stuff to meet their individual
> > needs so the need to use a basic text editor outside of a web browser
> > may not be all that important, depending on the target market.  Just a
> > thought.  For the more advanced users, it shouldn't be too hard to copy
> > over to an open window and copy back.  No matter what you do, there's
> > going to be some copying involved if there's a remote server involved.
>
> How do you propose to recommend editing LaTeX templates?

In the case of LaTeX templates, you provide a regular textarea.  In 
suggesting a web-based WYSIWYG editor, I was thinking of HTML templates.

Charley