I've been thinking of a more interwoven system of generic relations where content objects could have members (watchers/fans/followers...) and could be related to other content objects.
I'm thinking about a use case - say a content object, Geometry (Geom). A Geom could be attached to a Post/Project/Image or what have you it. Then, users could come along and attach members(themselves)/pics/Projects/Posts to that Geom object. The Geom content object itself could serve as an *ad hoc*'group'. Perhaps if we could arrive at some simple convention essentially all content objects could become groups. Maybe I'm too far out on a limb here? On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:36 AM, bobhaugen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 23, 5:28 am, James Tauber <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > What got me started was not the abstract idea, but having some content > app instances that I think want to be linked to two groups and some > other objects that are not groups - but their use of the content > objects is a lot like groups. That is, they want bridges, and the > content app views etc are all set up to be bridged. > > As I wrote, I will be trying this next week, and maybe I'll find > technical roadblocks or hate it when I see it running. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
