Plugin to show multiple versions of same file?

jdmarch · Post by *jdmarch » 2003-11-01, 19:21 UTC

I'm considering writing a WCX or WFX plugin to browse the output of a backup program that I'm experimenting with, Datakeeper from Powerquest, which keeps multiple versions of each archived file. (They would be easy for a plugin to read because they are either simple copies of the file, or single-file zips of each file. They are stored in a parallel directory structure, with files renamed to allow multiple versions) I'd want the plugin to have a choice between showing the contents of the archive at a specified time (i.e. the newest version of each file not later than that date/time), or showing all versions of each file.

Implementing the latter mode raises some issues. From an initial look at the WCX and WFX specs, it seems that

* If version numbers were appended to each filename in the file list (except the current version), then a full read/write implementation would be possible either as WCX or WFX.

* If multiple versions were listed with the same filename, then a full read-only implementation (including unpack) would be possible in a WCX, and a list-only implementation would be possible in a WFX.

1. Is this an accurate assessment?
2. Has anyone considered writing any other versioning plugin?
3. What are the pros and cons of WCX vs WFX?
4. Might TC6 have new features relevant to this capability?
5. Do you use another versioning disk-to-disk backup program which you like?

Thanks!

jdmarch · Post by *jdmarch » 2003-11-05, 20:12 UTC

Hmm, resounding silence. I guess my last message was too unfocused. Let me try again.

I'm trying to decide whether this plugin should be WCX or WFX. I'm leaning toward WCX:

Either a WCX or a WFX can display a list of files, copy files to or from the list, rename and delete files in the list, and can contain folders.

A WFX plugin can only be accessed from a single location in the Network Neighborhood, whereas a WCX plugin can be accessed from wherever one puts an "archive" file which contains a file list.

Also, a WCX supports Ctrl+B, whereas a WFX does not.

Are there any advantages of a WFX that I'm overlooking?

Thanks.

sqa_wizard · Post by *sqa_wizard » 2003-11-05, 20:35 UTC

I think the reason of the "resounding silence" is the very special relation to Datakeeper from Powerquest.

Nevertheless I think that a WFX is the best choice.

A WCX is commonly related to a single file (archive), while a WFX handles a filesystem.

Talking about :

- Define an upper date limit
- Show all files as plain list (like Ctrl+B)
- hide all duplicates but the latest

sounds like a WFX.

... just my 2ct

jdmarch · Post by *jdmarch » 2003-11-08, 15:52 UTC

Many thanks for your reply, sga wiz. Perhaps I'm being dense, but I don't follow your reasoning. Both WCX and WFX can be considered to be containers for folders and files, but it seems that WCX has a more capable and flexible interface to TC. Presumably the functions that you list would need to be implemented in the plugin code in either case, yes?

I agree that my specs "sound like" a "filesystem" more than an "archive", but apart from the words, would a WFX actually have any greater functional power or flexibility than a WCX?

sqa_wizard · Post by *sqa_wizard » 2003-11-08, 17:35 UTC

I'm not a developer, so my knowledge at coding is only basic.
Concept and design is my strength.

I mainly see the endusers point of view and his expectations of the functionality and usability.

The current usage of

WCX : selecting a single file and show the content or properties of it.

WFX: opening a virtual filesystem with a special kind of view and related tasks

This means the handling of a WFX is more likely what I (and may the enduser) would expect.

jdmarch · Post by *jdmarch » 2003-11-08, 19:36 UTC

I agree with you about a user's natural expectations of the two types of plugins. But note that quite a few archive plugins significanttly, and usefully, stretch this natural expectation:
CatalogMaker
DiskDir
Makebat
TreeCopy

But in any case, my question is more about the ease of implementation of these two types of plugins.

Post by *ghisler(Author) » 2003-11-12, 15:53 UTC

I think that both plugin types may be possible:
1. If the backup program has a catalog of all backups, or keeps them all in one dir, a file system plugin would be appropriate. Each backup could simply be one subdir
2. If the backup program creates individual backup files like ZIP or CAB files, it's better to create a packer plugin, because the backup files may be anywhere.