[development] relationships API vs i18n
wdlists at optonline.net
Fri Nov 10 03:38:07 UTC 2006
Module sound dangerous to me. I can imagine two different modules that both
need a particular relationship. If it is already established that is ok. If
not, then they establish it with their module name.
From: development-bounces at drupal.org [mailto:development-bounces at drupal.org]
On Behalf Of James Walker
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:26 PM
To: development at drupal.org
Subject: Re: [development] relationships API vs i18n
On 9-Nov-06, at 10:14 PM, Angela Byron wrote:
> On 9-Nov-06, at 8:21 PM, Jeremy Epstein wrote:
>> It would be good to support relations between entities of any type,
>> not just nodes. So instead, we could have:
>> CREATE TABLE relation (
>> type char(12),
>> id1 int,
>> type1 char(12),
>> id2 int,
>> type2 char(12),
>> weight int
> Would a "module" field here also be helpful, so you know which module
> set the relation? And a "name" field perhaps? (maybe that's getting a
> little too frilly ;))
Frilly, perhaps... but we've seen time and time again how tracking the
module that is "maintaining" the relationship can be *very* helpful (files
table anyone?) ... name is perhaps excessive, but personally I'd +1 it.
James Walker :: http://walkah.net/ :: xmpp:walkah at walkah.net
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.0/525 - Release Date: 11/9/2006
More information about the development