[Cosmo-dev] 0.6 sharing proposal

[Brian Moseley]

On 11/8/06, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:

> I was more referring to things like storing an iCalendar blob as the
> primary representation of event data.  i.e. you have to refer to an
> iCalendar spec to understand that bit, so it's not reverse-engineerable
> "without reference to *anything* but the database schema".

yea well, sometimes you do things like that for the sake of
performance, efficiency, or correctness. sometimes you denormalize
your relational schema for the same reasons :)

the current schema is oriented towards storing and fetching generic
blobs of content. some of those blobs we parse and index into another
table at storage time in order to query on the details of the content
(caldav), but for the general case, that's not necessary.

it's only interesting to break icalendar blobs down now that we're
talking about having multiple protocols and data formats to manipulate
and represent calendar items, and that's why we're considering schema
changes.

> Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "object model", because some of what's
> been said about it made it sound like a metamodel rather than a domain model.

that's probably just your unfamiliarity with it.  we have Items,
ContentItems, CollectionItems, etc.