On 31 August 2012 12:44, Rok Garbas <[email protected]> wrote: > we've been using to on pretty big vocabularies. but those vocabularies we > managed outside of plone (eg: italian provinces, regions, ...). i was thinking > that it would be nice to persist this in plone which would also made it > possible to change it (you can then have any kind of permission over it) but > this never happened since there was no usecase for it.
I think based on this conversation and further consideration, I'd like to make some changes in the design: 1. Only the "root nodes" (or vocabulary) will be a content object. 2. We'll still attempt to use Plone's user interface to add, edit and manage the contained (hierarchical) terms, but these objects won't be content types (and won't be indexed). 3. There will be no security on the terms. 4. It might make sense to model the contained terms as "virtual objects". This allows us to support both the requirement of "many terms" and "manageable terms". Extending on the original proposal, we'd also like to dynamically associate a behavior to each vocabulary. This behavior simply adds a choice or list field (configurable) which pulls values from the vocabulary. I haven't looked into an implementation strategy for this yet. \malthe _______________________________________________ Product-Developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plone-product-developers
