RE: Nested db-objects

> From: Maât [[email protected]]
> Sent: 2008-05-24 16:23:04 CEST
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [phpGroupWare-developers] Nested db-objects
> 
> Sigurd Nes a écrit :
> > So - can I please have the nested db-objects?
> If you ask me (but i'm just giving my point of view) i would say : 
> *temporarily* yes with the following conditions :
> 
> 1) we should rewiew/clean/optimize rather quickly the code modifications 
> you suggested so that clone creation and clone release are well 
> controlled (and the number of clones limited) or better if possible : 
> replace the cloning by a cleverer approach that allows multiple requests 
> to be parsed without conflict (and then plan for a replacement of clones 
> where they were used).
> 
> 2) we should track very seriously :
> -- un-needed clones (created and not used)
> -- cases where a slight code rework could avoid the clone approach
> -- too early cloning
> -- too late releasing
> 
> 3) We should fix the above cases in apps (included ged and property) 
> with a rather high priority in a reasonable time.
> 

I can live with that - but I need some time to analyse and fix the issues.

Meanwhile - I propose that we branch out the .18 with cloning permitted - leaving out the upcoming features of Interlink (which still have issues).

Also I think we should drop the idea of the sync of the svn trees of savanna and Resight - as it seems to generate a lot of friction.

Both the Resight project and phproupware would benefit from using the standard patch-manager at savanna. Then the Resight project will have more freedom to play around - and the community will have more control of what gets in.

- And hopefully it can be as fun as it used to be:)

So - what do you think?

Regards

Sigurd

_______________________________________________
phpGroupWare-developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/phpgroupware-developers