Custom Fields again
jon at vmware.com
Tue Dec 10 22:59:24 UTC 2002
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"
Engineering System Administrator
"Te occidere possunt sed te edere non possunt nefas est."
More information about the developers