On Monday, June 14, 2010, Eric Lemoine <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday, June 14, 2010, François Van Der Biest > <[email protected]> wrote: >> +1 for this patch, Eric. > > Or maybe we shouldn't have LayerRecord map the "title" field to > "name". The definition of the "title" field and the mapping to "map" > should be done in LayerReader, if no recordType is provided. The > common case is indeed to map "title" to "name" it looks like, instead > it is specific to the LayerReader.
The last setence must actually read: "The common case is indeed *not* to map "title" to "name" it looks like, it is specific to the LayerReader". > What do you guys think? > > I can cook up a quick patch if people agree with the idea. This patch > could break existing apps (those creating specific record types using > LayerRecord.create and assuming these types include a "title" field > that maps to "name), but I guess this is ok since we're pre 1.0. -- Eric Lemoine Camptocamp France SAS Savoie Technolac, BP 352 73377 Le Bourget du Lac, Cedex Tel : 00 33 4 79 44 44 96 Mail : [email protected] http://www.camptocamp.com _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.geoext.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
