On 2/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You summarized my comments well. > > On 2/3/06, Andreas Hartmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The structure vs. index question needs IMO > > some more discussion. "Structure" sounds more like a static way to > > organize things, "index" rather like a dynamic way. But maybe that's > > only my personal perception. > > "Indexes can have a flat or hierarchical structure." > Agreed. Indexes implies dynamic, where structure implies static. > Since I want there to be multiple configurable methods of retrieving > the relationships between Documents, Indexes is the better choice so > the technology will follow. > > === > In Lenya1.2: > "Assets" is the GUI name for additional data files. > > "Resources" is the file system directory name for "Assets". It was > only seen by developers, and was never defined well. The directory > name should disappear in Lenya1.4 if the Assets are moved to the > repository. I like Resource as the superclass for Documents and > Assets. > > "Content Item" implies an "Item" of "Content". 1.2's "Content" > contained "Documents", so "Content Item" is an alternate name for a > "Document".
Did 1.2's "Content" really only contain "Documents"? I guess I consider "Content" a more general, inclusive term than you do, so to me it fits the need very well. Lenya is a "content management system" after all, not a "resource management system". "Item" is used by other systems for a piece of data (a > cell in a table in most databases), and XML uses Item as a superclass > for Nodes, Elements, Properties/Attributes. Agreed, so I wouldn't propose the use of the word "item" without context, but only as part of the phrase "content item". > > solprovider > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
