Custom fields schema

Christopher Hicks chicks at
Mon Jan 31 17:09:27 UTC 2005

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Gervase Markham wrote:
> 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.

Bah.  I don't think the meta nautre of custom fields changes the fact that 
FAC and FAR are two different ways to represent the same thing.  There's a 
one-to-one correspondance between them and calling it "hard" to convert 
doesn't make it so.  I'm not saying it would be a trivial task, but it 
strikes me as being pretty straight forward and something that anybody who 
has experience dealing with nontrivial databases could do without agony.

> 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.

It seems that Dave is working on that.  Yay!


"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

More information about the developers mailing list