> First I'd like to thank you all for your replies. I'm
interested in
> implementing this ( or those ) changes but I know I'm
new to the FW
> architecture and I'll need your help validating my
ideas.
Trading a few emails is IMO a small price to pay if it means
someone else
can contribute an important feature like
attachments/objects.
> Of what I've read today it appears to me that this
discussion includes
> two distinct feature requests.
Interesting. You've really boiled it down. You're saying
that one important
aspect is naming - whether content items need to be able to
scope other
content items in the name-space. By combining the two
feature request, I
think you might be suggesting a third option:
3) Namespaces contain topics. Topics have a name and a type,
and contain
zero or more other topics.
Which is really full extension of the folder/file metaphor.
This would be a fairly drastic change to the architecture, I
think. Enough
that we may have to rule it out in order to ship FlexWiki
2.0 all in 2007
(which is still going to take a bit of doing).
------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the
chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -
and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.
php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Flexwiki-users mailing list
Flexwiki-users lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flexwiki
-users
|