On 27.09.10 16:21, Greg Monroe wrote: > Even thought we don't use it, I think this is a valuable attribute. I > know I've referenced it a few times when people ask about validation. > E.g., in you set it to your custom validation class, then in the Table > class override the base set method for the column so that it lookups > and calls this validator class.
I beg to differ. IMO, validation should be done at the input edge and not in the Db layer. > Although, I suppose that we could drop this in favor to the more generic > "option" key/value attribute. However, the disadvantage here is that > the options attribute was designed for use by templates and are not > carried into the Map classes. The Map classes are generated from templates, too. > Maybe the options attribute key/value pairs should be carried into > the Map structure. This would be a more generic method for application > or add-on developers to define custom items that can be used by either > templates or code. I second this one. Having this kind of extension mechanism available in the code could be *very* useful. Bye, Thomas. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
