Hi! On 01/10/2008 11:24 AM Derick Rethans wrote: > On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Tobias Schlitt wrote:
>> After summarizing my views, the questions now are: >> >> 1. Do we need to support composite IDs? > We don't *need* anything, and I think I agree that this might be > something that adds a lot of complexity to PersistentObject. Perhaps we > should not do this then. >> 2. Do we want to support composite properties? > If it does not add too much complexity, I think we should see if we can > come up with a decently easy design for doing so. But if there is no > elegant way, we should abandon this too. No, I don't think we can find a way here, either. We would still need to introduce a new definition class to be used alternatively to ezcPersistentObjectProperty (the current defintion class for properties). This would mean checks anywhere such a property is used in a query, which applies to as many places as it does for the ID property. Therefore I'd suggest to close #8963 as "Won't implement". Agreed? Regards, Toby -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Med vennlig hilsen / With kind regards Tobias Schlitt (GPG: 0xC462BC14) eZ Components Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | eZ Systems AS | ez.no -- Components mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ez.no/mailman/listinfo/components
