On Friday 18 May 2007 15:34:25 Joe Shaw wrote: > > It took my a sec to grok the distinction between hit type and file type. > > If I understand correctly hit type could also be called "present as", and > > yes present-as and file-type are independent the way you describe it. > > However this is not the way I would abstract things. I think a category > > tree like http://www.grillbar.org/xesam/object-graph.png would be > > more natural. In this way both MailAttachment and files in a tarball are > > both EmbeddedObjects in a natural way. > > I'm trying to merge this paragraph with the image URL you gave... does > this mean that for each possible EmbeddedObject type, the entire > Object hierarchy would be duplicated? Ie: > > Object -> (Video, Audio, Person, etc.) > EmbeddedObject -> MailAttachment -> (Video, Audio, Person, etc.) > EmbeddedObject -> ArchivedFile -> (Video, Audio, Person, etc.) > > If so, I'm not crazy about this at all. It feels a lot more natural > to consider the concepts of what category the file is (file type) and > where it comes from (hit type) as two independent pieces of > information, and essentially treat them as interfaces implemented by a > document.
Can you provide a more concrete example of why you can't e.g. define a Object.HitType field instead to provide the same functionality? What benefits does this give? What specific fields do different hit types have? --Evgeny _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
