Forum OpenACS Q&A: Re: General comments data model

Collapse
2: Re: General comments data model (response to 1)
Posted by Don Baccus on 04/17/03 09:35 PM
A handful of packages were written this way, and no, it should not be subtyped from acs_message.  In fact if you can figure out a way to write an upgrade script to get rid of this in existing installs we could rewrite the datamodel to be more sensible.  It probably wouldn't be that hard to do, in general munging the type of an object isn't that big a deal.
Collapse
3: Re: General comments data model (response to 2)
Posted by tammy m on 04/18/03 10:08 PM
Hi

I was looking at general-comments data model too, to add some Search support to general-comments. Could you point me to a package that was written "the right way" with respect to the data/object model? Should general-comments subclass acs-message-revision in the manner static-pages subclasses content-revision? I know object-munging might seem trivial to experienced OpenACS-ers but us newer folks find it a bit less trivial. For instance, it is not apparent to me how changes to object types might affect the workings of other packages as object type changes are not literally inherited as a true OO system... it seems optional to have "correctly" implemented object type checks in other packages and that things could easily break if object changes are made... any tips on how to best navigate these waters?! And by the way, what is "trackback ping capability?!"