Universal Type Without Model Definition

Comments

7 comments

  • Avatar
    Matthew Dodd

    Yes please! I thought this was an existing Story but I can't find it.

    This often happens - a chain of stories all leading back to something like this. (Queries starting from primary elements --> Where has model condition --> Remove models from primary element aliases)

    Also there's this one (another way of solving the same problem)

    14856 Conditional Model Masters: Choose the priority of existing models on elements.

    Matt.

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Kevin Bedward

    Oh yes please!

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Peter Kristensen

    I have not encountered it before.

    You are right; we have been circling around this issue for a while without really grabbing it by the horns. I think it will be a good progression in MooD's development from Process/Object types to Universal types to Model-less Universal types (or rather Universal types with an optional model).

    Could there be a performance improvement by not having all the unused model definitions...

    -Peter

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Kevin Fairs

    Peter,  can you help me understand why data tables would not suffice in this space? (I have my suspicions, but want to close the gaps)

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Peter Kristensen

    Usually, the types where we never use the type models keep data that is CRUD'ed within MooD. Data tables are read-only.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Soren Staun

    Just to underline it: No models doesn't mean no masters can be applied. Point is, no custom models can be made for these elements ever, only masters can be applied to Create, Read, Update and Delete.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Matthew Dodd

    Hi Peter, data tables can be written to, they just default to having readonly permissions applied. I appreciate they are still not as easy as 'normal' elements to work with.

    Soren, we were considering making models a thing that you can add to a type, just like a field. This would also allow you to have multiple model types associated with a given alias (or none).

    Matt

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.