View of /PEAK/TODO.txt
Parent Directory
| Revision Log
Revision:
1130 -
(
download)
Mon May 19 17:33:59 2003 UTC (20 years, 11 months ago) by
pje
File size: 5031 byte(s)
Misc. edits preparing for 0.5a2
Open Issues/To-Do Items
Targeted for 0.5 Alpha 2
* Finish 'protocols' breakout and prepare for possible PEP
- Add reference docs
- Create tutorial
* ZConfig Integration
- Sample 'AdaptiveTask' classes that perform the same functions as those
in the MetaDaemon package, integrated into the 'peak.running'
ZConfig schema component.
Targeted for 0.5 Alpha 3
* Rough-out web publishing framework
Targeted for 0.5 Beta 1
* Updated reference docstrings for 'peak.api', 'peak.binding',
'peak.config', 'peak.exceptions', and 'peak.naming'.
* Finish tutorial chapter 2 (?)
* Web publishing framework sufficient to deploy page-based or object-
published apps
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?
Targeted for version 0.6
* Get XMI writing in place, w/transaction support
* Generate UML 1.5 and CWM 1.0 and 1.1, and add them to the
'setup.py' package lists.
* On-the-fly class combination (think "runtime module inheritance",
without the modules) for DMs.
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)