Jacques Le Roux wrote: > From: "Adam Heath" <[email protected]> >> [email protected] wrote: >>> Author: jleroux >>> Date: Fri Jul 2 10:32:58 2010 >>> New Revision: 959943 >>> >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=959943&view=rev >>> Log: >>> Revert r959673 on Scott's advice. There is already a >>> getCategoryMembers. A bit different but it's ok, as it does not make >>> much sense to sort categoryMembers with another field than sequenceNum >> >> Sorting by name? > > Yes I thought about it, but would need more work (we don't have the > internalName in CategoryMember). If we really need it then we should > preferably reuse the method I firstly posted in CommonWorker.java but > then in ProductWorker. BTW maybe we could have both, not a big deal, > just a parameter to add in the service def and a switch on it (if > exists) to one or the other implementations.
Create a view for this. It's faster to have the database do all the work, then do iterate, and do singleton fetches of each item. > Note also that this is convenient when you have only a bunch of products > per category, clearly more than a dozen begin to be too much... I guess > it's why nothing like that exists OOTB... But dependent dropdowns at > large are still useful... We've got a site that has 4000-5000 products per category. All DVD, All BluRay. Loop-based lookup/searches are very bad. Including handling of VIEW_ALLOW stuff(which is a loop-based system). I haven't yet had time to finish/test the singleton query that fixes the VIEW_ALLOW performance problem.
