Re: managing helma collections

I'd very much second this request - its exactly the kind of
functionality I keep missng myself when working on helma apps.

I guess the real question is: can this be implemented in the current
persistance subsystem or is it such a radical change that it needs to be
done in a completely reworked persistance layer for something like helma
2?

Actually I'd also like to add that it would be great if this could be
supported for both the sql *and* xml db's as that would really bring the
xml db implementation upto par with the sql, in terms of features if not
performance.

Maks. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
> [email protected]
> Sent: Monday, 6 August 2007 19:39
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Helma-user] managing helma collections
> 
> hi there
> 
> last week i filed a bug report with a suggestion to modify 
> helma's getOrderedView() method when using additonalTables:
> http://helma.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=532
> 
> i came across this because i am currently trying to find a 
> generic approach towards listing hopobject collections in a 
> flexible way.
> 
> ie. i'd like to have all items of a collection in a 
> table-like layout, with two-level grouping (e.g. alphabetical 
> and page number) and sortable header fields.
> 
> imho it's nothing exotic, just what we are used from desktop 
> applications like a mail client where such an item is 
> represented by a message and the collection by all e-mails. 
> actually, it's like a mirror of what's going on in the 
> database table itself.
> 
> i consider it a very basic and important way of representing 
> data records which is almost ubiquitous when building 
> applications with helma.
> 
> currently, i don't see a really feasible option to realize 
> such a thing with helma, at least when avoiding 
> subnodeRelation settings or directDB queries. (although both 
> could be a solution, nevertheless.)
> 
> what do the other worshiped helma users and application 
> developers think:
> 
>  * is there a way to make this happen without defining much 
> too many collections in type.properties?
>  * is subnodeRelation / directDB the way to go?
>  * could it be done easier and the helma-way simply by adding 
> some nifty helma features?
> 
> i am really curious about your suggestions.
> 
> ciao,
> tobi
> _______________________________________________
> Helma-user mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://helma.org/mailman/listinfo/helma-user
> 
> 
>