On 11/23/09 12:22 PM, Kevin Smith wrote: > 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?
We do seem to have a bit of a disconnect here. I'd like to either bridge the gap between collections and "node-as-code" or decide that there really are two separate things here. Right now I lean to the latter. BTW we must find a way to use the phrase "notification plasm" in our specs somewhere. :P Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
