RE: [Modus-devs] XML descriptor of linked contentObjects, WAS: Collections of content objects and performance

[Nathan D. <na...@ch...>]

> Ah, OK. But then isn't type="org.bacfug.modus.fields.contentObject"
> somewhat redundant? Do you *need* the ability to specify multiple
> container types? Do you even *want* that ability? It seems to me that
> it's just an implementation detail - the important part is the
> underlying type, not the collection type itself.
>

Well, the idea was to push the machinery for dealing with contentObject as
field into a specific field implementation rather than have it in
baseField -- the idea being that is a special case.  Given the current
paradigm of "fields" I need some way to tell it what kind of field it should
be, and I am not sure it would make any sense to just point at a
contentObjectType -- since the internals expect something that extends the
baseField.

Make sense?

 - n