On Thursday 19 June 2003 01:08 pm, P.van Kemenade wrote:
> Hi
>
> >> I think hank was proposing that bidir relations should actually be
> >> bidir
> >> at the time of their creation; that their direction must be stored (&
> >> never swapped).
> >> That is a whole new approach, am I right ?
> >
> > That would mean that we need to add a direction field to insrel right?
>
> should it ? eh .. getting confused again ..
> a relation is always directed from src to dst, obviously.
>
> this is what I would expect:
> if a relation between 2 otypes (o1 and o2) is defined bidir,
> both (an instance of ) o1 or o2 could appear in src
> (and the instance of the other otype should appear in dst).
> that would effectively "store" the direction.
>
> but this is not the current practice (if I understand correctly).
> it also sounds like a hardcore change, affecting the bridge.
if you define the relation in to directions than it looks like this is the actual
behaviour
so
<allowedrelationlist>
<relation from="a" to="b" type="related" />
<relation from="b" to="a" type="related" />
</allowedrelationlist>
is maybe is wat most people want.
>
>
> >> but why would you swap fields at all ?
> > because it already difficult enough to find relations/other nodes:)
>
> >Node otherNode = relation.getSource() == node ?
> relation.getDestination() | relation.getSource();
>
> yes .. I have such a kind of wrapper in my mmbase toolbag,
> along with some other obfuscating ugly evil shortcuts :-)
>
>
> *pike
>
>
> =========
> Help stop world hunger -- visit
> <http://www.thehungersite.org>
> Is The Hunger Site real?
> <http://www.umich.edu/~virus-busters/hunger.html>
>
>
>
--
Kees Jongenburger
Mediapark C101 Hilversum
+31 (0)35 6772910
