On 6/6/06, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also; the paranoid part of my brain wonders if the <copyField> directive
should be left as it is, and a new <dynamicCopyField> directive should be
added to support wildcards in the source
... i worry that some weird sick
individual out there might acctually want a field name that contains a "*"
in it, and we've not eliminated the ability for them to use that field
with a copyField
(this was the same motivation for the <field> <dynamicField> distinction)
I'm fine with having "*" in copyField, and it seems pretty clear what
it does (most people should be familiar with "*" as a wildcard).
For the record, I actually preferred <field name="*_i"> to
dynamicField, but I didn't feel strongly enough to argue much. There
can be errors made both ways... someone may put a "*" in a field
definition, expecting it to act like a dynamicField.
I also don't think it's that important to support any character in
field names... so if you can't have "*", I don't see it as a big deal.
I'm acctually in favor of this approach .. Yonik's idea once upon a time
of supporting <copyField source="*_a" dest="*_b"/>
I still think that's might be a useful case, but it's implementation
can wait until someone actually needs it :-)
-Yonik
