Hi,

I looked through the design doc and the current experimental code and I have 
the following questions/comments:

- I'm not convinced that it is a good idea to have datastores and fetching of 
real data from the nodes etc. at all. Isn't it better to let this be 
application specific. You can then implement datastores that are specific to 
your trees which means that you get rid of the "mixed" return value from the 
data property.
- how exactly do you return a subtree, depth first, breadth first, etc..?
- it would be nice to be able to join data with nodes (for db backends) in 
queries so you can filter/sort on data information as well as node 
information. I know this breaks the encapsulation between nodes and data, but 
it might be useful. I guess this must be implemented as special 
implementations of the tree/backends, so you could say that it is supported 
already. What would be cool though if is the standard implementations allows 
for easy re-implementations of methods to allow this.
- optionally it would be nice to be able to have the node data and the real 
data together to save queries.
- ezcTree::fetchById now fetches the node data, this should be delayed until 
actually used.
- what about implementing hooks when saving/updating/deleting so you could set 
metadata on the nodes (that come from the data objects) which can be used for 
filtering later.
- what data will the nodes provide by default? (e.g stored date etc.)
- db-schemas for the db-implementations would be nice in the design doc.
- should we provide a tree storage class (singleton) for easy fetching of a 
tree?
- I'm missing a bit more detail in the design doc that displays the main 
functionality of each of the classes
- I'm also missing a few examples of typical usage in the design doc.

Rename suggestion for clarity:
ezcTree::fetchById --> ezcTree::fetchNodeById


This line is probably a bug :) in ezcTree
if ( 'ezcMail' !== $propertyValue && !$handlerClass->isSubclassOf( 
$parentClass ) )

On Thursday 19 July 2007 16:48, Derick Rethans wrote:
> Do you think those convenience methods are useful?
Yeah, don't see any reason not to have them.


Cheers,
Frederik
-- 
Components mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ez.no/mailman/listinfo/components

Reply via email to