View Single Post
  #6  
Old 04-18-2005, 06:15 PM
xja xja is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 01-06-2005
Posts: 146
Another rationale:

If UR worked like Windows file system, then I would agree with Richard that what he is suggesting is the one and only correct way. ie, If a folder "contained" an item (item 1) and a link (or shortcut in Windows parlance) to another item (item 2), then a copy of that folder should contain a copy of item 1 and a link to item 2.

However, UR does not work like Windows (thanks, Kinook!). UR items do not "contain" or "hold" any items. They just have logical links to other items. Item 3 has 2 links, one link to item 1 and one link to item 2. It just so happens that item 2 is linked to something else so it has a shortcut arrow on it (by the way, using that shortcut arrow is confusing because, coupled with the Explorer-like tree, it makes you think it works like Windows shortcuts).

In Windows if you deleted the "original" item 2, then the item 2 link/shortcut would then be invalid (it would point to nothing). In UR, if you delete the first instance of item 2 in the tree, the data still exists and it is still linked to item 3. Of course, if that were the only parent link item 2 had, then the shortcut arrow would even go away and it would appear "contained", but of course it is still just linked.

I know I am not telling anyone anything new about how UR works, but I just wanted to point out that if you just implement the method that Richard describes, you are making it work like a directory system and limiting the power that is already built-in to UR.

Personally, I think the default action on a duplicate command should be to link to, not duplicate, all children, but offer an ability to copy children, either as a Paste Special command (ie, "Duplicate All Children") or as an attribute in each child.

Last edited by xja; 04-18-2005 at 06:18 PM.
Reply With Quote