On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:50:17 -0400
Casey Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In practical terms this would mean that the versioned catalog would
> need to keep track of the uids that had been cataloged, uncataloged
> and reindexed in the version. The "merge" would mean cataloging,
> uncataloging and reindexing those same uids in the current catalog.

A complicating factor to this though is that it would need to be done
*after* all of the other content merges. That implies some sort of
dependancy graph, *bleah*. I've never been terribly fond of the idea of
catalogs as top-level instance space objects (i.e., peers to the content
they catalog), and things like this are one of the reasons why.

In any case it might be good enough for an object to be able to say
"merge me last". Other toolsy and servicey sorts of objects that depend
on content (like a workflow state repository) might want to do so as
well. As long as the state of the tools doesn't depend on each other,
then it's ok. That last sentence is making me a little ill, however ;^)


Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to