Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Representing site structure

Author:Tommy Sundström
Posted:7/5/1999; 6:51:56 AM
Topic:Representing site structure
Msg #:8191
Prev/Next:8190 / 8192

What direction is tree structure mapping taking in Frontier?

It used to be quite straightforward, with site catalogs represented by tables and files (documents) represented by cells. This is a hierarchical storage with a close resemblance between site structure and how it is stored.

Then came tableRenderer. To me it seamed like a logical continuation of the Frontier way - the documents are represented by a table and became more flexible/powerfull.

But now the developments seams to be centered around storing pages in a discussion group structure.
    It's basicly a flat storage, that doesn't utilize the object structure of the Frontier database. Structure is represented by using "inResponseTo" and "responses". It could just as well be stored in a traditional database.
    To me it seams like a format that's is apropriate to material with a large number of simular and equaly important text items, and where the structural moment is simple - like a discussion group, weblog or news stream.
    However, for a more 'traditional' web, with it's typical mix of different type of materials, and of a more intricate play between simularity and difference for different deparpent, the traditional Frontier storage model seams more apropriate.

Since I'm a lazy person, I want to keep as close to the main stream in Frontier development at possible, to be able to explore future development (and possibly contribute some). So I'm courious if the DG way of representing site structure is going to be the main direction, or if we will see the 'traditional' hierarchical storage for 'traditional' webs (possibly using the DG message table format for storing pages).

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:51:15 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.