Re: [PATCH 0/9] Multi-valued proposal (WIP)




On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:17:28 +0100, "Juan A." Suárez Romero <jasuarez igalia com> wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 15:54 +0000, Iago Toral wrote:
> But besides this, this relations defined by core are somewhat
fixed,
> in
> the same way core register the predefined keys: we can add in
> documentation which keys exists, and which keys are related with.
>
> Let me clarify why I added this approach: plugins can define their
> own
> keys on run-time and this keys can correlated with other keys.
>
> As example, Gravatar plugin introduces two new keys,
"artist-avatar"
> and
> "author-avatar", and this keys are correlated with "artist" and
> "author", respectively.
>
> So I need to have a flexible way to handle this situation.

 To be honest, I find the fixed correlations important (like having
 multiple uris and wanting to match ach of them with their mimes for
 exmple), but for other cases like the one you mention here I don't
know
 if it is so important. My doubt is if this extra flexibility is
worth
 it.


My concern is not if it's good or not, but if it's necessary or not.


If we allow plugins defining their own keys, then we must have a way of
having other correlations.

Else, let's drop out the possibility of creating new keys in sources.

As I explained on jabber, we could have specific API for third party developers to manage correlations manually in case they need / want to. It would not be as nice as this, but if that allowed us to have a more explicit API it could be worth the sacrifice, specially thinking that the use case for user defined keys with correlations is not something that I see happening often at all.

But anyway, maybe adding some extra utility APIs in GrlMedia* objects as a way to make some of the most important relations a bit more explicit is a good balance between both points of view.

Iago

Iago



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]