On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Tobias Schlitt wrote: > On 01/10/2008 11:24 AM Derick Rethans wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Tobias Schlitt wrote: > > >> 2. Do we want to support composite properties? > > > If it does not add too much complexity, I think we should see if we can > > come up with a decently easy design for doing so. But if there is no > > elegant way, we should abandon this too. > > No, I don't think we can find a way here, either. We would still need to > introduce a new definition class to be used alternatively to > ezcPersistentObjectProperty (the current defintion class for > properties). This would mean checks anywhere such a property is used in > a query, which applies to as many places as it does for the ID property. > > Therefore I'd suggest to close #8963 as "Won't implement".
Yes, but add a good commented rationale why not in the comment when you close it please. regards, Derick -- Components mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ez.no/mailman/listinfo/components
