Open Issues/To-Do Items Targeted for 0.5 Alpha 2 * ZConfig Integration - A 'config.ZConfig' module that provides "PEAK-aware" versions of ZConfig services (e.g. it will use 'peak.naming' to resolve URLs) - App startup tools based on ZConfig files. - Sample 'AdaptiveTask' classes that perform the same functions as those in the MetaDaemon package, with a ZConfig schema to run them in a daemon-like application. - Generate ZConfig schemas from 'peak.model' or MOF models? * Fix issue w/reading XMI 1.1 files where metamodel has nested packages * Generate UML 1.4 and 1.5 and CWM 1.0 and 1.1, and add them to the 'setup.py' package lists. * Get XMI writing in place, w/transaction support Targeted for 0.5 Beta 1 * 'peak.naming' refactorings: 'peak.model'-based syntax utilities for creating address syntaxes. * Updated reference docstrings for 'peak.api', 'peak.binding', 'peak.config', 'peak.exceptions', and 'peak.naming'. * Finish tutorial chapter 2 (?) * On-the-fly class combination (think "runtime module inheritance", without the modules) for DMs. Targeted for 0.5 Final Release (or sooner) General * Tutorial complete through chapter 4 peak.storage - unit tests for more complex object scenarios: references, thunks..? - lock management interfaces/API - docstrings for reference peak.model - clean up TW docstrings & interfaces peak.naming - useful example "flat" naming context (e.g. like AppUtils.URLkeys) - useful example hierarchical naming context (e.g. like JNDI's LDAP context or filesystem context) - rework smtp: to return a factory object that supports open(). Also think about whether smtp should move elsewhere. Maybe there should be peak.network or peak.internet for things like smtp, ftp, etc contexts? peak.running - make 'cluster' parser complain about things that would cause the clusterit tools to choke or barf on the file, or which would produce ambiguous or unintended results. - simple daemons comparable to those in MetaDaemon, unit tests - docstrings for reference peak.config - "Rule"-oriented configuration files (section specifies component rather than property name prefix), so that daemons and other simple apps can be fully configured and run via a config file. peak.util - docstrings for reference - more unit tests? Future Releases (Note: some of the below is held-over from TransWarp and may no longer be relevant as written, they are being kept on this list as placeholders for ideas or problem areas that may need to be re-considered in future.) Miscellaneous * Functional tests that access "real" databases, LDAP, etc. Simulator/Module Inheritance * Allow 'declareModule()' to bootstrap non-existent modules; this might let us create "virtual packages" made by assembling other packages and modules. * Need a strategy for handling "del" operations; they are currently untrapped. This might be okay under most circumstances, but need to consider edge cases. * 'makeClass()' should probably become part of the core API, where it can be used to resolve __metaclass__ conflicts during the first pass of importing a module (prior to running 'setupModule()') Messaging/ObjectSpaces * Support for sending and receiving remote cache invalidation messages between DataManagers. peak.model * Implement WarpCORE-oriented structural model, w/Querying support * "Indexed" version of in-memory model? Queries * Refactor to use interfaces, if appropriate * Incorporate into AbstractModel? - Pros: * Queries always available * Each StructuralModel implementation can easily include its own performance-tuned version of the basic items. - Con: default implementation doesn't perform well on large datasets * How much of framework needs extensibility? Should the predicate classes be placed in the StructuralModel's namespace so that predicates have their meaning assigned by the StructuralModel implementation? peak.metamodels.uml * Helper methods in Elements & Services for marshalling, common queries, etc. * Generator framework - Tagged values in stereotypes vs. main values? - Should tagged values be copied directly into templates? Treated as Python expressions? - Should Services be generated using an Element class' "static" (class-scope) methods/attributes? - Are association-ends scoped? - Would it be better to seperate them? - What determines whether an implemented Service actually stores objects or delegates this to its subclass services? * Simple Zope product demo (upload XMI, then browse the model via the web)