Kees Jongenburger wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-07-01 at 09:56, Eduard Witteveen wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 2002-06-29 at 08:51, Kees Jongenburger wrote:
>>
>>>>node.getValue("some_function(some_argument)");
>>>
>>I prefer to look to a node as 'something' with field's
>>For me the functions specific to the node, can be put inside the node as
>>virtual fields.
>>
>>For these node funtions and also the static functions, my question is:
>>* How relevant are they for an generic MMBase system.
>>* Can we maintain it?
>>* Which one's are we talking about? (or is it just an hack, to get some
>>value's / operations, which cannot be reached by using the bridge)
>
> In short I thinks that the current bridge is ok, but it is a "fact" that
> MMBase can do more then what is provided by the bridge(let's take images
> as example). I think we want to be able to reach this functionality
> without hacks. There are multiple solutions to you problem
> -create a separate interface for images
> -use "functions"
> -move the code outside of the builders so that images only use MMBase
> for storage
> -use java 1.3 to create dynamic stubs like pierre did a year ago?
>
> what are you opinions? (my feeling is that option 3 is the most
> desirable).
Why would you wanna move code outside of the builders? Isn't the whole
MMBase idea you can have functionality *inside* the builders?
Gerard
