[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > <Eduard Witteveen:> > > IMHO turning builders to inactive is not very wise. Please do not use > > this. It can also lead to a lot of other problems... > > Like what? > > I can think of two good reasons to turn off builders: > > 1) To have multiple MMBase instances running, using the same cloud. It's > not necessarily desirable to have the same set of builders active on all > instances.For example we're running a configuration in which one instance has > read-only access to the database. The "mmservers" builder has to be > inactive here, to prevent it from updating its table at regular intervals. > 2) To deactivate legacy builders. If you can add items to a system, you > should also be able to remove it gracefully.Even a standard MMBase configuration, >installed out of the box, activates > builders that I don't need. > I'd like to hear what kind of problems can arise from inactive builders.
I think you are totally right. I think that 'inactive' builders must be just like 'active' builders with only these differences: 1. They are not present in the list of nodemanagers (unless, perhaps, stated explicitly) 2. You cannot create new nodes of this type. If the builder xml is missing all together, and/or the typedef record is missing, then perhaps nodes of this 'unknown' type should be returned as simple 'objects' (so only having a 'owner' and a 'number' field). I think the problems are mainly related to having nodes with relations to these 'inactive' nodes, or relation types with on one end these inactive builders (even worse). You can now remove a builder by making sure there are no nodes of this type (two SQL queries is normally quickest, but <mm:listnodes type="foo"><mm:delete /></mm:listnodes> should also do it), and no relation types to it. Yes, it should be fixed, I agree totally. Michiel -- Michiel Meeuwissen Mediapark, C 107 tel. +31 (0)35 6772979
