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:

  1. Attributes are stored in a more orderly and accessable manner than with the traditional attribute style.
  2. It's so close to xml that translating to and from xml should be trivial and quick.
  3. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:50:29 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.