From: "Adam Heath" <[email protected]>
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: "Adam Heath" <[email protected]>
[email protected] wrote:
Author: jleroux
Date: Fri Jul 2 10:32:58 2010
New Revision: 959943
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=959943&view=rev
Log:
Revert r959673 on Scott's advice. There is already a
getCategoryMembers. A bit different but it's ok, as it does not make
much sense to sort categoryMembers with another field than sequenceNum
Sorting by name?
Yes I thought about it, but would need more work (we don't have the
internalName in CategoryMember). If we really need it then we should
preferably reuse the method I firstly posted in CommonWorker.java but
then in ProductWorker. BTW maybe we could have both, not a big deal,
just a parameter to add in the service def and a switch on it (if
exists) to one or the other implementations.
Create a view for this. It's faster to have the database do all the
work, then do iterate, and do singleton fetches of each item.
Yes certainly, but apart the 1st roundtrip the Ajax call is fast enough
(caching?). I'm not quite sure it would change much things.
Note also that this is convenient when you have only a bunch of products
per category, clearly more than a dozen begin to be too much... I guess
it's why nothing like that exists OOTB... But dependent dropdowns at
large are still useful...
We've got a site that has 4000-5000 products per category. All DVD,
All BluRay. Loop-based lookup/searches are very bad. Including
handling of VIEW_ALLOW stuff(which is a loop-based system). I haven't
yet had time to finish/test the singleton query that fixes the
VIEW_ALLOW performance problem.
Yes, as I said dependent dropdowns are only useful when you have few products
by categories.
Jacques
