in reply to RFC: a nodetype for considerations
I like the idea, but I'm a little worried about making considerations a first order object. It seems to present scalaing issues that im not sure I like. Id rather see consideration objects being implemented independent of the node table. Yes this would mean you couldnt id link to a consideration, but I don't think thats bad.
Elswhere, Tanktalus said:
Second would be more of a /msg system. .... I think I like this better - it keeps everything simpler, at least from an interface perspective. Not so sure about the code side.
Something like this IMO would be fairly straight forward to do. I think it bears thinking about, even if it is ultimately rejected.
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re^2: RFC: a nodetype for considerations
by Arunbear (Prior) on Dec 03, 2006 at 23:04 UTC | |
by demerphq (Chancellor) on Dec 03, 2006 at 23:27 UTC |