Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.
Discuss group storage weak for reflecting site structure
Author: Tommy Sundström Posted: 5/27/1999; 12:17:17 PM Topic: Site-storage of the future Msg #: 6814 (In response to 6788) Prev/Next: 6813 / 6815
Is the discuss.root storage the storage format of the future? That would trouble me.
What I like with the discuss group storage format:
- Attributes are stored in a more orderly and accessable manner than with the traditional attribute style.
- It's so close to xml that translating to and from xml should be trivial and quick.
- Content is kept in one gdb, looks in another and code in a third (well, the separation between the last two is not 100%). This makes an excellent base for support and work organisation.
What I don't like
- While site structure is represented (parent of a node is in "inResponseTo" and children in "responses"), this representation is much weaker than the traditional Frontier hierarchy.
- Attributes can only be set to documents, not to catalogs, making the detailed controll over subtrees that we are used to, realy hard to obtain.
- Instead of 'natural' urls, that reflects site hierarch, we get the anonymous $number-urls. This is un-nielsen.
(I am aware that it's possible to make a traditional hierarchic interface of the discuss.root data. But I think it would require a lot of work, make a complicated structure, and be hard to combine with dynamic serving.)
Then again, I may have missunderstod this. Maybe there is possibilites within this format that I've yet to see. I'm curious about what Manila will bring.
There are responses to this message:
- Re: Discuss group storage weak for reflecting site structure, Dave Winer, 5/27/1999; 12:23:10 PM
This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:50:29 PM.
© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.