On 12/02/10 12:32 +0100, Udo Spallek wrote: > First improvement: For me the default search should be full text in all > fields indicated by select="1" of a model.
Why not. But you can not do the same search on different kind of fields with
the same value. Per example string with float, etc.
By the way, using rec_name will extend the default behavior as it is already
done on many2one fields and many2many.
Of course this new syntax could be applied to those fields.
> For one2many and many2many I suggest a mapping of the related fields. So
> we can search for specific addresses on party model.
This is hard because the client don't know necessary the structure of the
relation field. But it could be a futher improvement.
>
> > Of course to be very ergonomic, the text entry will need autocompletion on
> > field names, validation of dates and numbers etc.
>
> This all sounds very great. And I am sure I will use the new search
> language every day. Users with a lesser affinity for 'programming' their
> search domains will see a restriction by a singular entry box for
> searches. This gap can be reduced with a domain composer and with a full
> text search I suggested above.
I find "domain composer" too complex, not ergonomic and take too much space.
I think what you try to achieve with the "domain composer" can be done on a
text entry with a good (smarter) autocompletion.
Here is a scenario:
Typing: n
Screen:
[n| ]
|-------
|Name |
|Number|
|... |
|------|
Select: Name
Screen:
[Name: | ]
Typing: Watson
Screen:
[Name: Watson | ]
Typing: c
Screen:
[Name: Watson c ]
|----|
|Code|
|... |
|----|
Select: Code
Screen:
[Name: Watson Code: | ]
Etc.
Autocompletion should work also on operators AND, OR
If a selection field is set: autocompletion must be also filled with selection
values.
And the convertion to domain should work even if missing closing )
>
> For me all ideas having their benefit and weak. But all together, a
> standard full text search with only one entry and an advanced search
> with a field-wise domain-composer we can serve all the needs together.
Yes but it is harder to maintain and I find merging the both into one will be
a big improvement. Because it could be used in many places (many2one,
many2many etc).
--
Cédric Krier
B2CK SPRL
Rue de Rotterdam, 4
4000 Liège
Belgium
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59
Email/Jabber: [email protected]
Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
pgpfCnjAVz2NJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
