[development] relationships API vs i18n
drupal at dwwright.net
Sun Nov 19 02:51:19 UTC 2006
On Nov 9, 2006, at 11:26 PM, Dries Buytaert wrote:
> Having simple, specialized tables (like the one above) is anything
> but a bad thing, IMO.
so, everyone who wants to use relationships has to fend for
themselves? provide their own DB tables, their own APIs, etc, etc? :(
things i want to use relationships for:
1) issue <-> issue (duplicate, depends on, etc)
2) issue <-> user (currently hard-coded as 3 things: "assigned",
"participated", "created", but this is inflexible and there's lots of
room for improvement).
3) issue <-> cvs commit (currently only 1 way... the commit points to
the issue, not the other way)
4) project <-> project (related projects, dependencies, sub-projects,
5) project <-> user (e.g. email notifications of new releases, but
lots of potential)
4) user <-> nid (that's all the signup.module should be)
i could go on and on...
-1 to me having to implement separate DB tables and APIs for each of
these things. that's going to kill progress on any of this (in terms
of the time it'll take me to do it), increase code bloat, and
encourage incompatible APIs that are harder for other developers to
grok, work with, extend, etc.
+1 to giving the relationship itself an id that you can associate
metadata with (that's what signup.module would be doing). in fact,
jeff eaton's proposal to the list seems fairly complete and straight
that's how i see it, at least. ;)
More information about the development