Kees Jongenburger wrote:
Hi Nico,
I think I understand how you would like the see the core. I think it
can be a wise choice to move in that direction. But when I read your
document it makes me feel like MMBase is very much like a database.
Only this one really is missing serious features like transactions.
Back in the day's I started hacking MMBase I wanted to add behaviour
to a whole cloud(versioning,security,replication). This is why I think
the current "MMObjectBuilder" core should move and become more bridge
like. I don't think that is what you are saying in your document. My
grand master plan was to one day implement nodemanager and not
builders. Also with the (good) fieldTypes move, the object orientation
of MMBase is not that necessary any more is it? So what's the great
selling point, Why not build a content repository from scratch?
Thanks Kees,
My story about repositioning the bridge is all about replaciong
"MMObjectBuilder" to a more NodeManager way. IMO "MMObjectBuilder" has
at the moment multiple responsibilities in the MMBase system and that
should become one. Repositioning also means to get ready for real
transactions.
Why not build from scratch? The combined knowledge of us all is in the
code. Not in documentation or heads of developers, but in the code. My
proposal is only about refactoring a small, and important, part of the
codebase
Nico
_______________________________________________
Developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
