On Mon, 2002-07-01 at 09:56, Eduard Witteveen wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-06-29 at 08:51, Kees Jongenburger wrote:
> > > node.getValue("some_function(some_argument)");
> I prefer to look to a node as 'something' with field's
> For me the functions specific to the node, can be put inside the node as
> virtual fields.
>
> For these node funtions and also the static functions, my question is:
> * How relevant are they for an generic MMBase system.
> * Can we maintain it?
> * Which one's are we talking about? (or is it just an hack, to get some
> value's / operations, which cannot be reached by using the bridge)
In short I thinks that the current bridge is ok, but it is a "fact" that
MMBase can do more then what is provided by the bridge(let's take images
as example). I think we want to be able to reach this functionality
without hacks. There are multiple solutions to you problem
-create a separate interface for images
-use "functions"
-move the code outside of the builders so that images only use MMBase
for storage
-use java 1.3 to create dynamic stubs like pierre did a year ago?
what are you opinions? (my feeling is that option 3 is the most
desirable).
>
> --
> Eduard Witteveen Systeem Ontwikkelaar
> NOS Internet, Gateway C Kamer 107
> +31(0)356772910 http://www.omroep.nl/
>
> Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? : The sixth Satire from Juvenal
>
>
