On Dec 16, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Eduard Moraru wrote: [snip]
> P.S.: From what I asked around, it seems that attachments are not > objects. That seems weird to me because, intuitively, the attachments > should be objects on a page of the class Attachment. On attachments > you > have versioning, meta-data and an attachment can exist on a page or > not, > the behaviour of an object. Could anybody explain the reason for this > please? I think I agree (need to think more of consequences). Probably historical reason. Attachments have a separate store but we could generalize this to let objects have an optional separate store too. Something to keep in mind when we redesign the model. Ludovic, any input from you on this? Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
