Including and excluding fields

Max Kanat-Alexander mkanat at
Fri Jan 15 06:09:32 UTC 2010

On 01/14/2010 08:32 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> fields=<comma-separated list of field names, or "all", starting from
>         the default and adding>

	This is a reasonable idea--it does accomplish something I was thinking
about, which is including extra fields in addition to the default
fields, which I was going to accomplish by an extra_fields argument, in
XML-RPC. I tend to prefer not overloading things with two meanings (in
this case, "fields" means both "add this" and "keep this")--I think it's
a little simpler to just have a separate param. But it might be simpler
from an implementation perspective to just have "fields"--I actually
don't know.

	Thinking about some use cases briefly, I suspect that "fields" would be
easier for consumers, though I worry that it would be somewhat unclear
and confusing when reading API documentation.

	If you do stick with this, I'd use "_default" instead of "all", though,
since I'd interpret all to mean "every single field possible".

Competent, Friendly Bugzilla and Perl Services. Everything Else, too.

More information about the developers mailing list