Re: [Modus-devs] Collections of content objects and performance

[Sean A C. <se...@co...>]

On Thursday, Oct 31, 2002, at 14:52 US/Pacific, Nathan Dintenfass wrote:
> We are very much on the same track.=A0 I agree that "join" is the =
wrong=20
> word in the OO context.=A0 Collection is much better.=A0 In fact, they=20=

> probably should=A0even be arrays,=A0they should be structs (in CF =
terms).

See my other comment about complex fields. That's where our system=20
began to break down. Part of the issue seems to be around how=20
'holistic' you want the XML descriptor to be: in a forum application,=20
for examples, we have multiple 'forum' objects, each 'forum' has zero=20
or more 'thread' objects, each 'thread' has zero or more 'message'=20
objects, a message object has zero or more replies which are themselves=20=

'message' objects. Should there be a separate description for each=20
object, or is one descriptor sufficient (or desirable) for that cluster=20=

of objects.

> =A0=A0<field=A0name=3D"related"
> =A0=A0=A0=A0label=3D"Related Press Releases"
> =A0=A0=A0=A0type=3D"org.bacfug.modus.fields.contentObject"
> =A0=A0=A0=A0multiple=3D"yes">
> =A0=A0=A0<objectType name=3D"modustest.contentObjects.pressRelease"/>
> =A0=A0</field>=A0=A0

So this is an array of modustest.contentObjects.pressRelease? What has=20=

"type=3D..." got to do with this? What value has the type got to do with=20=

anything?


"I can smell your brains!"
-- Mittens the Kitten : http://www.matazone.co.uk/theotherside.html