On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Robin Collier <[email protected]> wrote: >> Collections as I see them are really just abstractions of content-based >> pubsub systems (hi Bob Wyman!), where you basically assign a fixed name >> (node identifier) to a particular query into the notification plasm. I >> am still interested in explicitly defining the minimally subscribe-able >> unit (like a blog post), so I want to to pass along a specific node from >> where a notification originates, though.
> That is an interesting concept, correct me if I am wrong, but this sounds > an awful lot like a view in a relational database. I am not sure if I would > consider this to be a collection though, it seems to me like another concept > which would be better called an aggregation node. I guess I would > distinguish them by defining a collection node as a collection of nodes, > whereas > an aggregation node is a collection of items from multiple nodes. When I read this thread, I'm left thinking that we've got two things, collections as they're currently known, and pesudo-nodes, or node-as-codes, or cold-nosed-bodes, or whatever. I'm not actively writing these systems, though, so I'm not sure. Can anyone say that we definitely do, or definitely don't need to distinguish between the two types? /K
