André van Toly wrote: > > - Should the checksum field of images.xml be removed again. > > Why? What does it do?
It was actually kind of a test for datatype features. The idea is that the 'checksum' field is a checksum value of the 'handle' field, and that you can mark this field as 'unique'. That makes it impossible to upload duplicate images. A nice feature, of course, but only feasible if this can be accompanied with clear message to users. I don't anticipate that we would get that working soon in e.g. editwizards. So perhaps at the moment its value is not worth the trouble. > 1.8 is not tested yet in very large environments, which is important > because of the new caching mechanisms, but i am of the impression > that it runs fast, contains little overhead of unused modules or > applications and is a very good and important release! I think 1.8 will probably be in certain cases a huge performance improvement, because of these new caching mechanisms (though that can be down-side there too, see also the mail of Ernst). We have also added a change to the postgresql layer, which can in certain cases drasticly improve the performance of some queries (by use of the 'only' keyword). MIchiel -- Michiel Meeuwissen mihxil' Peperbus 111 MediaPark H'sum [] () +31 (0)35 6772979 nl_NL eo_XX en_US _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
