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

[David Lang]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, singh.janmejay wrote:

> 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.
>
> Kind of construct im thinking of:
>
> %foo:regex:[a-f0-9]+% to match hex-numbers for instance.
>
> Thoughts?

Since this will be such a performance pig compared to the existing parse tree, 
how about requiring a 'enable low performance types' flag or something like that 
to enable it?

There needs to be some good indicator that this is a performance problem.

David Lang
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Lognorm mailing list
Lognorm at lists.adiscon.com
http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/lognorm