bquinn
commented
1 year ago Today's discussion:
- arguments for and against adding sequence to associations, we can understand that users (implementers) might re-arrange items and might need to go back to the order given by the provider
- would we therefore need to add sequence to all arrays in ninjs? objects, people, events?
- maybe we add it to all of them and allow users to decide whether to use them or not?
- but in general the default should be that the array order is the sequence of items - if someone re-orders the document then they are manipulating the content and they shouldn't be doing that.
Heather / AP said they will be working on this (and partmeta) during the summer so we will defer this work until the Autumn Meeting.
This have been discussed now and then and also been compared with the other type of packages where a bunch of "unrelated" ninjs objects are being handled in a group. It is mainly Heather from AP who have been interested in this. But it has led up to the construction of associations in ninjs cover most of this use case.
The suggestion from AP is to add role and/or relationship in the association object. The association objects should also have a sequence/order property to securly indicate in wich order the objects should be treated. Even in 2.0 when associations is an array it is a bit uncertain if that array gets rearranged i various processing steps along the distribution chain and on the receiving end.