Yes. I've found that even when it seems clear there should be a 'correct' ordering, it turns out a year or two later that the 'correct' ordering has changed. Moving that logic to the rule allows you to change it easily without editing the content.
Tomek On Mar 13, 3:57 pm, Kevin Purcell <[email protected]> wrote: > @Chris Thanks for your help, but I'm not sure this is going to help in > this case. The content types that I'm describing don't really have a > 'parent' content type to which an array property can be added, but > rather have an order in their own right (as opposed to an order when > related to the parent). > > @Tomek Thanks for the pointers on where to look to better understand > rules. I did wonder whether the better approach when dealing with > content was to handle the ordering of the data in the rule, rather > than try to define it on the content itself. Do you think it's better > to make this distinction and keep all content essentially 'unordered'? -- You received this message cos you are subscribed to "farcry-dev" Google group. To post, email: [email protected] To unsubscribe, email: [email protected] For more options: http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev -------------------------------- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/farcry
