1 files changed, 0 insertions, 53 deletions
diff --git a/feature/view/object-loading b/feature/view/object-loading
deleted file mode 100644
index 8ecabb2..0000000
--- a/feature/view/object-loading
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,53 +0,0 @@
-! Object loading views [2.4.0]
-
-- The joined object can be joined just to be used in the query condition or
-  to load the data. How to distinguish the two cases and what should be the
-  default?
-
-- All the non-lazy object pointers, containers, and sections should probably
-  be loaded one way or another (if the user wants an "incomplete" load, then
-  he should use the normal view and specify the data members). This can all
-  be controlled via lazy pointers/sections on the user side.
-
-  So the behavior seems to be load all the non-lazy pointed-to object
-  either with a single SELECT, if it were joined by the view, or by
-  issuing a separate SELECT otherwise.
-
-  The only uncertain case is a JOIN'ed lazy pointed-to object. Here
-  the user will have to specify whether to load the object (within
-  a single SELECT) or it was JOIN'ed only for the query condition.
-  Since this is a performance feature, the defaul should probably
-  not to load. The mechanism used to specify this should probably
-  also be used to specify whether to SELECT FOR UPDATE joined objacts.
-
-- Support both object pointer and direct member as an object (similar
-  to the load() signature). Might have to rely on delay loading. E.g.,
-  first load all the JOIN'ed objects (and enter them in object cache).
-  At the same time prevent nested object load by locking the statements.
-  Then load all the delayed objects which will be resolved via the cache.
-  That's probably the only way to support a pointer to the same object
-  in both another object and the view itself.
-
-- Can ask the user to use a session to help resolve the object pointers,
-  if, for example, the same object is used to initialize another object
-  member and a view member.
-
-- Can/should this be used to implement SELECT FOR UPDATE? What about JOIN'ed
-  objects?
-
-- Need to think also how this is related to containers. E.g., container
-  loading queries?
-
-- Implementation-wise, we probably want to create a combined image out
-  of inidividual object images and to delegate to the object code as
-  soon as possible.
-
-- Interraction with other features:
-
-  - Polymorphism will be tricky. Probably ok not to support this initially
-    since often there will be a followup SELECT to load the dynamic part
-    of the object.
-
-- See also:
-
-  See email from <sean.clarke@sec-consulting.co.uk>/30-Oct-2014.