[dokuwiki] Re: more cleanup questions
- From: Matthias Grimm <matthiasgrimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: dokuwiki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 09:46:40 +0200
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:37:14 +0200
Andreas Gohr <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Should we really add another level here? How about this:
>
> data/
> |-- meta/
> | |-- 0/
> | | `0363bfeef96b11ea3115e0d9b5a281d9.mlist
> | |-- 1/
> | |...
> | |-- e/
> | `-- f/
> | `-- _htcookiesalt
> |-- locks/
Did you rename 'cache' to 'meta' here? I think wo should have a 'cache'
directory to hold all 'nice-to-have' information and their deletion
should do no harm to a running DokuWiki.
That means that there must be another place for all those data that save
temporarily information which can't be deleted without to disturb the
currently running DokuWiki like locks, mlists, cookiesalts, etc.
Let's sum up all discusses suggestions:
data/
|-- changes.log
|-- attic/
|-- media/
|-- pages/ <-- was data in your first mail, by acciddent?
|-- meta/
| |-- locks
| |-- mlists
| `-- _htcookiesalt
`-- cache/
|-- 0/
| `0363bfeef96b11ea3115e0d9b5a281d9
| `0363bfeef96b11ea3115e0d9b5a281d9.i
|-- 1/
|...
|-- e/
|-- f/
'-- purgefile
The cache for pages and media files could merged I think.
To save even more directories the pages and media directory
could be merged as well but I won't recommend that.
The contents of 'xhtml' seems to me as the cached pages and
will be laced in the numbered directories, right?
What about the 'instructions' directory? This files have the
same name as the corresponding page. You could also move them
into the numbered directories and attach a '.i' to the name.
We have three areas now:
permanent data: attic, pages, media
temporary data: meta
volatile data: cache
> If we add similar metadata later it could go into the same
> dir using a different extension.
...depending on how permanent the information is.
> What about the config file? Should we merge the currently three config
> options datadir, olddir and mediadir into one option pointing to the
> data directory and assume a hardcoded name structure within? Or should
> cachedir and metadir options be added? I would opt for the first one.
I don't know which one is the best but I always would tend to more options
if we got them at no costs. Why would you like to cut down your possibilities
only to get a shorter configuration file? I don't know if this flexibility
is ever needed but to built it in later would be hard. So if there are no
very good reasons to have a hard coded directory structure, add the 'cachedir'
and 'metadir' options.
Best Regards
Matthias
--
DokuWiki mailing list - more info at
http://wiki.splitbrain.org/wiki:mailinglist
Other related posts:
