Re: Should intids be replaced with uuids for relations?
Laurence Rowe <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAOycyLRN0ErbLcDr_Xwr8khvnexWoUkD4Trb2-cdp4a_vu6OwA@mail.gmail.com> |
> > References should be stored canonically on content items as a uuid, that > allows you to rebuild your catalogue when necessary. For dexterity, I just > used the plone.formwidget.contenttree.source.ArchetypesContentSourceBinder > for my relatedItems fields, even in dexterity only sites. One field for > each relation type. It felt much more robust. You could then index the uuid > values in the catalog using a KeywordIndex to give you the ability to find > back references. Storing them as python integers would be more efficient, > though they'll still end up in OIBTrees as they're > 32 bits. > That would now be known as the UUIDSourceBinder nowadays... Laurence ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move to Perforce. With Perforce, you get hassle-free workflows. Merge that actually works. Faster operations. Version large binaries. Built-in WAN optimization and the freedom to use Git, Perforce or both. Make the move to Perforce. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=122218951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Plone-developers mailing list Plone-developers-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers