Cees de Groot wrote:

>Chris Burkert  <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org> said:
>  
>
>>So if you want a stable SmallWiki, use the current VW version 
>>(better wait for 1.0). I will try to keep in sync with the VW 
>>version (maybe we can reach this with monticello). If you want to 
>>help me, please do so!
>>
>>    
>>
>You can also use Gardner in the meantime - it's a bit more minimalistic,
>as it plugs into Seaside rather than carrying around its own web
>framework, and I'm happily running my http://www.tric.nl/ site with 
>it. If you decide to move to SmallWiki later on, no problem - Gardner
>uses the SmallWiki parser so your data should be easily transportable. 
>
>Grab the version from my public MC repository, after installing from SM - sorry,
>haven't had time to update SM... http://www.tric.nl/~cg/mc
>
>(installing from SM first should make sure that you've got all the
>dependencies correct)
>  
>

What sort of persistence model are you using with Gardner?  Last night I 
managed to convert SmallWiki into a monticello format and clean it up a 
bit (got all the SUnits passing)...the SIXX storage is not quite working 
(need to deal with compiled methods and contexts) and there's a problem 
with the parser and a few other things, but it's very close to being usable.

But, I was disappointed to learn that SmallWiki keeps everything in 
memory and the SIXX based storage model just dumps out an entire wiki to 
a huge XML file once per hour (or some other interval that you can 
set).  But, maybe I'm missing something.  I did like the pluggability of 
the storage system (you could plug different storage providers into 
it...for example, you could plug in a snapshot based storage backend 
that simply saved the image every so often).

But, what I'd really like is something that doesn't keep the entire 
content in memory (or even better has a caching strategy) and used some 
sort of disk based storage (ie. database or file system).  What does 
Gardner do in this regard?

- Stephen