[Lognorm] Any reason we should not support regex-based field-type?

[singh.janmejay]

Cool, i'll do it.

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Rainer Gerhards <rgerhards at hq.adiscon.com>
wrote:

> 2014-11-03 10:26 GMT+01:00 singh.janmejay <singh.janmejay at gmail.com>:
>
>> I am thinking of it as a 2nd class field-type.
>>
>> By that I mean, one gets best performance from 1st class supported
>> field-types, but if for some reason that is not sufficient for someone,
>> they can use a regex-field-type. It may be a little low on performance, but
>> then it unblocks people immediately.
>>
>> I can do it, just need to know we are not ideologically against it.
>>
>>
> I really don't like it, because I fear that people will always use regexp,
> and so this get's pretty low by default. But I think I've lost that war in
> any case ;) So it's OK for me if you implement it - actually, I'd even be a
> little bit happy ;-) .
>
> Rainer
>
> Kind of construct im thinking of:
>>
>> %foo:regex:[a-f0-9]+% to match hex-numbers for instance.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Janmejay
>> http://codehunk.wordpress.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lognorm mailing list
>> Lognorm at lists.adiscon.com
>> http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/lognorm
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lognorm mailing list
> Lognorm at lists.adiscon.com
> http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/lognorm
>
>


-- 
Regards,
Janmejay
http://codehunk.wordpress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.adiscon.net/pipermail/lognorm/attachments/20141103/136d3b23/attachment.html>