http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11592
--- Comment #66 from M. Tompsett <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Tomás Cohen Arazi from comment #65) > I would consider this bugfix if it was implemented as a > Koha::RecordProcessor filter for MARC::Record objects, rather than just > another hook to C4::Search. That way we could use it wherever we need it. This does NOT touch C4::Search at all. My initial worry is the whole inclusion loop making debugging a pain! But your idea of effectively moving all the stuff added to C4::Biblio into a filter module is good, if there isn't some magical loop which makes debugging a pain. > BUT I have to say that I've been playing with an implementation that works > with MARCMXL instead (using XSLT) and could help us simplicy results > rendering and probably performance. > > I'm trying to finish the patches (the hackfest had me busy with other stuff) > so I can attach them for peer review. I was going to attempt to go that way. My concern is if we have MARCXML filters and non-XML filters, we need to make sure they are identical. I suppose part of the unit tests to add into the continuous integration. :) This is why I was wondering if perhaps we would go completely MARCXML internally, as I vaguely recall some indexing limit which you hit for a MARC Record, but perhaps that is unrelated. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
