Custom fields schema

Gervase Markham gerv at
Sun Jan 30 23:58:32 UTC 2005

Christopher Hicks wrote:
> One other red herring that I'm tired of seeing is that we're stuck with 
> a bad implementation and that another lump of tweaking 
> can't move us to another way of doing things.  

Without commenting on any of the other issues, I don't see this as a red 
herring. While in theory it's probably true that one could convert from 
FAC to FAD using, in practice such a thing is more complex 
than any other dynamic schema change we've ever tried, and would be hard 
to write and liable to fail in unexpected ways due to the "meta" nature 
of custom fields and the fact that we can't predict what people will use 
them for. It would never happen.

I certainly agree that endless debate is bad - but the correct way to 
deal with endless debate is for the person charged with ending it to 
bring it to an end. Dave should step up and make a decision - FAC or 
FAD. The fact that one has an implementation available is certainly a 
factor in that decision, but should not by itself be conclusive.


More information about the developers mailing list