Custom Fields again

[Jonathan Schatz]

On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 10:12, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Enough of this halfway house! :-) Let's have full custom fields, 
> implemented in a clean, generic and sensible way, or not at all. :-)

why have a concept of "custom" fields in the first place? i mean, why
not treat additional fields the same as normal fields?

right now, the current implementation(s) of custom fields in 91037
involves a seperate table that contains custom field information. why
not directly update the schema in bugs.bugs instead? adding a new custom
field wouldn't require any more info than a normal field ( field, type,
default).other than rebuilding / recompiling templates (which isn't an
impossible problem), the biggest issue i see is searching. perhaps we
could break out all of the sql query generation into a seperate module,
which would be responsible for knowing which fields do and don't exist.

i don't know, it's early (for me) and i haven't had a cup of coffee yet,
but this is the idea i've been toying with in my head. i'll most likely
move ahead with a prototype of this internally against 2.17.1 once i've
ported my 2.16.1 changes there, so comments / flames are welcome. i just
don't see the need to treat custom fields any differently than "normal"
ones...

-jon


-- 
Jonathan Schatz
Engineering System Administrator
VMware, Inc
"Te occidere possunt sed te edere non possunt nefas est."