Khalid B wrote:
The "users as nodes" and "comments as nodes" were discussed in the relationship session.
Not the details of whether it is a good idea or not (there seems to be disagreement on this in the community), nor how to do it, but rather along the lines of "if we had this we could do much more with relationships".
I'm guessing that the other side of this argument thinks that taxonomy can handle all 2-d and 3-d relationships? I can see the advantages of introducing "has-one", "has-many", "belongs-to" and all that into Drupal, but please let's not make establishing those relationships as flap-waggingly tedious as it is in Rails (where I'm sure this pressure's coming from in part). My current thing has relationships which ought, if we're being Drupal purists, to make exclusive use of taxonomy. For the sake of lightening the DB load and making it at least slightly comprehansible for site maintainers (including me), I had to set up the largest two "taxonomies" as node types instead. A relationship works by autocomplete-referencing an existing thing when creating a new thing and storing it in the new thing's table. One of the 'taxonomies' I'm talking about here has over 1m terms. So the short version of this is to suggest that under some circumstances, taxonomy doesn't scale -- but only at the UI level. jh