Versioning and persistence

[Chris Bitmead uid(x22068)]

>   Basicly I think you were suggesting a system where you divide up the
>   system in a certain way into segments, and I'm questioning if that
>   gives you flexibility.
>
>It's true that you lose a bit of flexibility.  If two objects are in the same
>segment, they will always be committed (new versions will be created) at the
>same time.

That wasn't what I was referring to. The loss of flexibility is this:
That the segment mechanism would be providing a crucial part of the
functionality, yet iy only operates on a single level. i.e. you can't
have nested segments or segments within segments. Therefore this
mechanism can only be used to divide up things at one level only. Thus
you lose a lot.

>
>But this doesn't mean you can't work with different versions of objects on a
>fine-grained level.  I can (in theory :-) open version 1 of a segment,
>navigate down to a particular object, then open v2 of the same segment,
>navigate to the corresponding object, and then compare them, or whatever I
>want to do with them.
>
>I'm not saying I know exactly how to implement this, but so far, at least, it
>looks workable to me.
>
>-- Scott
>
>