It seems ok by me. The overhead for an extra table seems neglegable if you don't use it.
Ernst On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Michiel Meeuwissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For a web-site I'm including 'flashobjects' in didactor. > > http://cvs.mmbase.org/viewcvs/contributions/didactor2/src/core/config/builders/didactor_resources/flashobjects.xml?view=markup > > Actually, I was thinking, the logical thing to do is to include this > builder in the 'resources' application. Next to images and > attachments. Because IMHO flash-objects (which are uploaded 'swf's) > are very similar. I'd like to request opinions, and perhaps even a > 'vote' about this, because it will cause an extra table for everybody > installing the 'resources' application. > > I'd probably also add an analogon to mm:attachment and mm:image > (perhaps mm-r:object or so, to present any recognized 'inline' object, > so, images, flash-objects..) > > Current version of this builder is already installed in > mm.meeuw.org/demo, in the editors you can see the gui-function in > action. > > > Michiel > > > -- > mihxil' http://meeuw.org > nl_NL eo_XX en_US > _______________________________________________ > Developers mailing list > Developers@lists.mmbase.org > http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers > > _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list Developers@lists.mmbase.org http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
