[TYPO3-dam] mmforeign

Ingmar Schlecht ingmar at typo3.org
Wed Sep 13 21:07:34 CEST 2006


Hi René,

René Fritz wrote:
>>> You can have more than one MM related field in a record.
>> That is easily possible with our implementation, you just need to use
>> different mm-tables to store the different relations.
> 
> Yes, but that is not usable for DAM.

That's right, DAM would need to be changed in order to work with our
implementation.

However, it would be possibly to adopt the DAM without dropping any
features, right?

>> Could you make an example of relations that are not possible to store
>> without match- and insertfields?
>>
>>> You need to know
>>> which field is related to the relation.
>> I don't understand what you mean. Could you try to describe it differently?
> 
> TYPO3 mm tables use tablenames to store the table name the relation is for, 
> but not the field of the table. This is no problem as long as you use the mm
> relation from that field - like it is now in TYPO3. But with bidi-mm you 
> might need to know which field in the other table is meant in the relation, 
> because there can be more than just one field using the mm table.

I know that with your implementation you could for example store the
"customership" relation in the same table as the "employment" relation
(both are persons <=> companies relations).

My question was if you could make an example of relations that are not
possible to store the way we implemented it.

My clear answer is: No, everything that can be done with matchfields can
as well be done with multiple mm-tables. Do you agree?

> You suggest 
> to use extra mm tables for each field, that works, but is not always what you 
> want. For the DAM this is not working.

What do you mean with "for the DAM this is not working"?

Of course it doesn't work out of the box but would need to be adopted.

> Anyway, if 'userProcessClass' (see below) will be implemented I don't need 
> enhanced mm tables in the core, because I can use my own implementation in a 
> clean way.

Couldn't that as well be done with the field type "user"?

cheers
Ingmar



More information about the TYPO3-project-dam mailing list