Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
There's more than one way to do things
 
PerlMonks  

Re: RFC: a nodetype for considerations

by demerphq (Chancellor)
on Nov 29, 2006 at 14:03 UTC ( #586703=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to RFC: a nodetype for considerations

I like the idea, but I'm a little worried about making considerations a first order object. It seems to present scalaing issues that im not sure I like. Id rather see consideration objects being implemented independent of the node table. Yes this would mean you couldnt id link to a consideration, but I don't think thats bad.

Elswhere, Tanktalus said:

Second would be more of a /msg system. .... I think I like this better - it keeps everything simpler, at least from an interface perspective. Not so sure about the code side.

Something like this IMO would be fairly straight forward to do. I think it bears thinking about, even if it is ultimately rejected.

---
$world=~s/war/peace/g

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: RFC: a nodetype for considerations
by Arunbear (Prior) on Dec 03, 2006 at 23:04 UTC
    Why would considerations as first order objects not be scalable?

      I guess you can look at the issue two ways. In one considerations are like special replies and therefore are objects in of themselves. The other way is to look at them as being attributes. I think they make more sense as attributes, and therefore to me making them first order objects doesnt fit my mental map. I dont want to view a given consideration, I want to view a node and its considerations. Etc etc.

      Nodes are never destroyed, so you can't clean them up. We get a far number of considerations per posts, over time it clogs up the node table.

      Maybe I'm not expressing myself properly here, but I do see this an overall issue. We are now have ~ 600,000 posts, if you start adding a consideration node, lets say 1 per 20 posts, i see that as unnecessary growth of the node table for what is really very little benefit. Its unlikely that one will want to view the full consideration history of a node for very long, maybe a month or so for an extremely contentious posting. But anything that goes in the node table is forever. And everything that goes into the node table affects the performance of the site, across the board.

      Anyway, my view on this is that the msg idea had a lot of merit. It wouldnt be hard to extend the private message system to handle the needs of consideration. Occasionally these can be purged etc etc.

      ---
      $world=~s/war/peace/g

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://586703]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others having an uproarious good time at the Monastery: (5)
As of 2021-04-11 16:38 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found

    Notices?