[OPEN-ILS-DEV] IDL- fieldmapper classes

[Mike Rylander]

On 5/1/06, Bill Erickson <billserickson at gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > If we had a <description> under the <class>, or maybe even just
> > @label, we could use the @id on <class> to hold the hint, and just use
> > the friendly name as human readable info.  I don't think we should put
> > any more tags under <class> unless we bring back <fields> and <links>,
> > though.
> >
> > In fact I'd vote for those to come back anyway.  It makes it much
> > easier to address the entire set of fields or links in code that has
> > to use this XML.  What was the driver for those going away?
>
>
> Refresh my memory, are the 'fields' and 'links' attributes simply lists of
> field and link IDs that are contained within a given class?
>

They were elements that acted as the direct parent for the current
<field> and <link> elements.  There are two (goodish) reasons to bring
those back: 1) <fields> (the parent of all the <field>s) is the right
place to put a @primary attribute pointing to one or more <field>
elements, and 2) it's conceptually easier (and, yes, more verbose) to
grab the container of the fields rather than a temporary bag full of
field elements... if that makes sense. :)

>
>
>
> --
> Bill Erickson
> PINES Systems Developer
> Georgia Public Library Service
>  billserickson at gmail.com
>  http://open-ils.org


--
Mike Rylander
mrylander at gmail.com
GPLS -- PINES Development
Database Developer
http://open-ils.org