[development] relationships API vs i18n

[Walt Daniels]

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 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