Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #5929, comment 34


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Dec 8, 2024, 4:26:39 AM (2 weeks ago)
Author:
Csirmaz Bendegúz

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #5929, comment 34

    initial v1  
    1 I believe this can be re-opened since #373 didn't address this problem. Perhaps a generic `CompositeField` field could replace the `CompositePrimaryKey` field one day. The code written for #373 could be refactored and re-used here. Or maybe not? My problem with this ticket is it doesn't really describe what it wants to achieve exactly. If this is re-opened I suggest we define a clear interface and set of behaviours that `CompositeField` needs to support first.
     1I believe this can be re-opened since #373 didn't address this problem. Perhaps a generic `CompositeField` field could replace the `CompositePrimaryKey` field one day. The code written for #373 could be refactored and re-used here. Or maybe not? My problem with this ticket is it doesn't really describe what it wants to achieve exactly. If this is re-opened I suggest we define a clear interface and set of behaviours that `CompositeField` needs to support first. If someone could provide a good use case for this please? I don't understand how the IP address problem is related to `CompositeField`s.
Back to Top