You could deal with both on input but you'd need to pass a flag back and
forth to keep track of which format you wanted on output and I don't
think that would be be very pretty. As long as the "rt help" stuff
mentions the format, I would think it would be ok. The "rt
search|list|ls" help does say that the format is the SQL-like syntax
(TicketSQL) that RT uses - as long as the "show" and "edit" help said
"CFs have prefix CF-" or something?
The change to CF.{} for REST CFs wouldn't be hard to code but I'm just
not sure that propagating a tricky syntax even further would be such a
good idea? It's possible (and easier) to modify the REST search function
to allow "CF-" as well as CF.{}. What about that?
PK
-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua Colson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 June 2006 12:56
To: Philip Kime; Jesse Vincent
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [rt-users] Custom Fields query vs. CLI edit
syntaxinconsistencies
What if the CLI supported both versions of the syntax? Would that make
the REST code more difficult to maintain?
_______________________________________________
http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com
Commercial support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media.
Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
We're hiring! Come hack Perl for Best Practical:
http://bestpractical.com/about/jobs.html
