Re: [Phli-developers] Tags and Albums (was Re: Next real-world developer meeting)

[Andreas S. <an...@sa...>]

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Johan Viklund wrote:

>> Another thing which I think we forgot to talk about during the last
>> meeting was how to handle photo albums. The most obvious implementation
>> would be to use a tag for an album, but what about order? We could
>> implement an index number in the image<->tag relation, but doing this has
>> a few pitfalls, mainly when listing the images in multiple tags or parent
>> tags.
>
> Albums are about presentation while tags are about organization. This
> separation should be made very clear. Don't mix them, ever, I don't
> subscribe to the idea of having a one-to-many relation between albums
> and photos, it's of course many-to-many. The underlying model of
> albums and tags is virually the same (except for albums beeing
> ordered).
My discussion was not so much about the GUI for albums/tags, but rather 
about how we store the data. The question I had was more about how we 
implemnet this in the database. As you wrote, albums and tags are 
virtually the same here. What I really ment was should we store the albums 
(internally) as tags, or are albums and tags so different that we need 
separate data structures for them? If we decide to put albums in a 
separate table, do we need to store them in some kind of tree structure? 
Or is a flat structure enough?

//Andreas