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. -----Original Message----- From: development-bounces@drupal.org [mailto:development-bounces@drupal.org] On Behalf Of James Walker Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:26 PM To: development@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@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