From: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:38:53 -0500
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PubSub] collection node definition
On 21-Nov-2009, at 10:08, Robin Collier wrote: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.
Aggregation nodes don't work when the publisher must define item ids.
You are correct, it would require new additions to the item definition at the
least to
define the source node, and I think that would be the least of it's problems.
A language
would probably be required for determining rules on how to aggregate, and that
would be much more difficult.
I was just pointing out that I thought the idea was different then collection
nodes
and should be looked at as a different solution for a different problem space.
I
don't agree with the node-as-code approach (as I have noticed you do not
either)
since as I stated earlier in this thread it is much too implementation specific
to be
part of the specification.
-bjc
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live: Friends get your Flickr, Yelp, and Digg updates when they e-mail
you.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9691817
