Rob Vermeulen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I think 'syncnodes' is considered a 'core' builder, which you cannot not > >have. Obviously removing them is implemented in mmobjectbuilder itself > >because that is easier. > > > Even, if it is a core builder, it's better to implement the > functionality where the responsibility should be. i.e. The syncnodes > builder should be responsible for keeping the syncnodes up to date. > Implementing it in MMObjectBuilder creates dependencies that are not > needed, and e.g. disables you to use a 'MMBase lite' core that does not > use syncnodes.
Well, I think syncnodes is only present as a String in MMObjectBuilder so it would really be no problem, and even a trivial change. > It's not a big deal, but it's nice to follow a clean OO design. Yes. Though you could argue that syncnodes really belong to the node they are syncing, and that the syncnodes-table is like the oalias-table only a 'helper', and it's not that obvious where is the most logical place to implement something. I mean, there are two nodes involved for every syncnode, the syncnode itself and another node... For synchnodes to do everything itself it should subscribe on change and so on.. I agree it it not a big deal :-) Michiel -- Michiel Meeuwissen | Mediapark C101 Hilversum | +31 (0)35 6772979 | I hate Internet Explorer nl_NL eo_XX en_US | mihxil' | [] () |
