|
From: | Sigurd Nes |
Subject: | RE: [phpGroupWare-developers] Nested db-objects |
Date: | Sat, 24 May 2008 21:12:55 +0200 (MEST) |
> From: Maât address@hidden > Sent: 2008-05-24 16:23:04 CEST > To: address@hidden > Subject: Re: [phpGroupWare-developers] Nested db-objects > > Sigurd Nes a écrit : > > So - can I please have the nested db-objects? > If you ask me (but i'm just giving my point of view) i would say : > *temporarily* yes with the following conditions : > > 1) we should rewiew/clean/optimize rather quickly the code modifications > you suggested so that clone creation and clone release are well > controlled (and the number of clones limited) or better if possible : > replace the cloning by a cleverer approach that allows multiple requests > to be parsed without conflict (and then plan for a replacement of clones > where they were used). > > 2) we should track very seriously : > -- un-needed clones (created and not used) > -- cases where a slight code rework could avoid the clone approach > -- too early cloning > -- too late releasing > > 3) We should fix the above cases in apps (included ged and property) > with a rather high priority in a reasonable time. > I can live with that - but I need some time to analyse and fix the issues. Meanwhile - I propose that we branch out the .18 with cloning permitted - leaving out the upcoming features of Interlink (which still have issues). Also I think we should drop the idea of the sync of the svn trees of savanna and Resight - as it seems to generate a lot of friction. Both the Resight project and phproupware would benefit from using the standard patch-manager at savanna. Then the Resight project will have more freedom to play around - and the community will have more control of what gets in. - And hopefully it can be as fun as it used to be:) So - what do you think? Regards Sigurd
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |