On Oct 23, 2009, at 11:24 AM, bobhaugen wrote: > On Oct 23, 5:19 am, James Tauber <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm wondering if a group without members is something all together >> different, though. >> >> The intention of a "group" is to be a set of members + content >> objects. > > Forget the name "group" for a minute. The implementation affords 2 > behaviors: > 1. having content objects > 2. having members > > They are separatable. I'll be experimenting with the separation next > week to see what I can do with it.
Oh, I agree they are separable, I'm just not (yet) convinced that level of abstraction is useful. One could also have abstract mixins for "things with names", "things with slugs", "things with creator/creation metadata". It's just not clear a priori where to draw the line. So I'm just being cautious about over abstraction. Sometimes copy- pasting *is* the cleanest solution to do-not-repeat-yourself :-) Happy to be persuaded on an individual case-by-case basis, though :-) James --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pinax Core Development" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pinax-core-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
