On 12 Feb., 15:53, Cédric Krier <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/02/10 16:03 +0100, Udo Spallek wrote: > > > > The actual implementation has also a good restriction of operators for > > the different fields. Not to say that we have named operators like > > starts with, contain, end with... > > > Will this all be lost? For me all the stuff we have is the half way to a > > domain composer. > > I think it is an end way. Most of the search are really simple and so a domain > composer will be use very rarely.
OK. I needed to think a bit about this topic. I see two different interests here. On the one hand we need an easy search gui for fast search that does not consume space in the gui. On the other hand there seem to be a need for somethink like a domain builder or a user friendly search tool. I think on the long run both would be great as for some users a user friendly domain builder would be easier to user (perhaps). But i also think that the suggested easy search field of cedric would be for me a good improvement for now. So it would be great if you could do this cedric. But the new solution should not lose comfort for the user compared to the actual one. If there is later a big interest for a domain builder: yes lets do that too. But lets do that later. Korbinian -- [email protected] mailing list
