Monday 02 June 2008 4:42:25 am
Hi Thomas I'm not sure that your proposal is a slight modification to the current implementation. It not only would require a reworking of the datatypes but also contentclasses & contentobjects. In terms of the problem you are trying to solve, I just can't get my head around where you are coming from. I get the feeling it's to improve efficiency, less queries or something similar. Can you explain further how flexibility improves with your approach? Maybe give examples? I'm asking these questions as it then introduces a measure of being able to say if one approach is better than another. I suspect that the overhead of retrieving some fields that may not be required is minor compared to having to retrieve content objects across a number of different tables for some queries. In the current implementation the "extra" info is only retrieved if required. (this might be solved by moving the meta data into the content_object table) Regarding extra tables, your proposal has an extra table per content class (per version?), while the existing approach only requires additional tables if required for the specific data.
cheers Bruce
My Blog: http://www.stuffandcontent.com/
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/brucemorrison
Consolidated eZ Publish Feed : http://friendfeed.com/rooms/ez-publish
|