Hi Carlos, I definitely think its worth it. How were you thinking of indexing this second table? The way to uniquely identify any individual property in the property table seems to require 3 fields -- property namespace, property name and version id? That would indicate that any table you create would need all three of these as the primary key?
Warwick -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Villegas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 8:40 PM To: Slide Users Mailing List Subject: Re: max revision limit? Warwick Burrows wrote: > Yes, but how much bigger? :-) It seems to be a flaw in the design that > there is a version property that constantly grows in length with each > new version added. Is this the way the spec defined the value of this > property, or is this just Slide's implementation? It seems to me it's a design flaw. There are several properties that are a list of values like history and group-member-set. I was thinking of adding a type identifier field to the properties table and storing the individual values in a different table, one per row. That's the usual relational db solution to this problem. BTW, there's a property_type field in the properties table and the Java object also has this field, but it doesn't seem to be used. Is it used at all? If is not can we use it for this purpose? I volunteer to try to fix at least one of the database stores using this technique if anybody thinks it's worth it. Carlos --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
