[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] DateIndex and __CEILING_DATE

[yuppie]

Hi!


Tres Seaver wrote:
> yuppie wrote:
> 
>> As proposed in <http://collector.zope.org/CMF/191> we would need to 
>> support old and new indexes because Zope 2.5 doesn't have DateIndex / 
>> DateRangeIndex.
>>
>> What about adding additional methods to the CatalogableDublinCore 
>> interface that return the values needed by the new indexes? This way 
>> they could co-exist with the old indexes that use the old methods.
> 
> 
> I would rather kill off the _CEILING_DATE / _FLOOR_DATE bit altogether; 
>  perhaps what we really need is three indexes:
> 
>   'effectiveRange' -- a DateRangeIndex against 'effective' / 'expires';

Maybe we should better use a Dublin Core term: 'available' (or 'valid'?)
<http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#available>
<http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#valid>

>   'effective' -- an as-yet notional DefaultedDateIndex against
>    'effective', mapping 'None' as "earliest"
> 
>   'expires' -- a DefaultedDateIndex against 'expires', mapping 'None'
>     as "latest".

I'm not sure if we still need these two at all. Are they used in any 
place where we can't use the range index instead?

> This DefaultedDateIndex class would derive from DateIndex, special 
> casing its handling of 'None', presumably via a radio button on the 
> index UI itself, which would offer:
> 
>   "earliest"  -- map 'None' or "missing" as earlier than all possible
>     dates
> 
>   "latest" -- map 'None' or "missing" as later than all possible dates
> 
>   "ignore" -- don't index content with 'None' or missing values.
> 
> We could propose adding this functionality to the Zope core (in the 
> DateIndex package), but supply our own implementation in the meanwhile, 
> using importability tests.

That might make sense. Are there any volunteers for this work?


Cheers,
	Yuppie