> Very rough and ready.
Then it's at least a candidate for contrib/ right away. > The worst part about this is overwriting the object-id method > completely. Fair enough. > Suggestions and whatnot welcome -- it works for our small mock up This first approximation is suprisingly simple. How do you add new objects (or prevent new instances from getting added automatically)? > but we're not sure if we'll stay with weblocks Can we help you in your decision process? In any case I'd be glad to know with what you will end up and what influenced your decision. > (our program is mostly for generating lots of RRD graphs -- if you > want an example of doing that with weblocks I can send it along). Yes please. I have a personal interest in such a thing and it would probably also make a nice additional demo. Some things I noticed: > (defgeneric strictly-less-p (a b) > (defgeneric equivalentp (a b) > (defun order-objects-in-memory (seq order-by) > (defun range-objects-in-memory (seq range) Did you copy those from the memory store? We should really make this available for all stores in store-utils.lisp. > (defmethod find-persistent-objects ((store db.allegrocache::database) > class-name &key > order-by range &allow-other-keys) > (order-objects-in-memory > (range-objects-in-memory > (let (val) > (let ((db.allegrocache:*allegrocache* store)) > (db.allegrocache:doclass* (x (find-class class-name)) > (push x val))) > val) range) order-by)) I suppose we'd want to delegate ordering and ranging to AC later for efficiency... Leslie --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weblocks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
