On 27.09.10 16:21, Greg Monroe wrote:
> Even thought we don't use it, I think this is a valuable attribute. I
> know I've referenced it a few times when people ask about validation.
> E.g., in you set it to your custom validation class, then in the Table
> class override the base set method for the column so that it lookups
> and calls this validator class.
I beg to differ. IMO, validation should be done at the input edge and
not in the Db layer.
> Although, I suppose that we could drop this in favor to the more generic
> "option" key/value attribute. However, the disadvantage here is that
> the options attribute was designed for use by templates and are not
> carried into the Map classes.
The Map classes are generated from templates, too.
> Maybe the options attribute key/value pairs should be carried into
> the Map structure. This would be a more generic method for application
> or add-on developers to define custom items that can be used by either
> templates or code.
I second this one. Having this kind of extension mechanism available in
the code could be *very* useful.
Bye, Thomas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: torque-dev-help@db.apache.org
|