On 10/4/06, Stefan Rinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 4, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Thomas Mueller wrote: > Hi, > > I agree. Of course there are other (may be better) ways to achieve > the same > without such problems, like using a deeper hierarchy. But the flat > hierarchy > is an important use case IMO. Many developers are used to this, and > it will > be hard to educate them to do it in a different way. I think it > should be > considered to change the implementation to allow fast addition of > child > nodes to a node. I'm not sure if this change alone will solve all > problems > (may be not). > > At the same time, I think the current model of node references > should be > changed to allow O(1) time when adding or removing a reference to a > node. In > my opinion, the same mechanism could be used for references and for > child > nodes. I definitely second these ideas. We are currently implementing a wiki which calls for flat hierarchies (yes you can invent some hierarchies but there is no real hierarchy in the data so it's more like adding unnecessary complexity).
i dare to doubt that a wiki calls for flat hierarchies. wiki's are inherently structured and this structure could be easily reflected in a hierarchical model.
We are also running against the limitations of the current references implementation (all references of a node in a blob and therefore truncation if you got a LOT of references). By the way - is there really no rdbms-based persistence manager out there using proper relations instead of blobs for references?
afaik, no. however, feel free to roll your own, and as always, contributions are very welcome ;) cheers stefan
- stefan
