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

[singh.janmejay]

We log a warning?

--
Regards,
Janmejay

PS: Please blame the typos in this mail on my phone's uncivilized soft
keyboard sporting it's not-so-smart-assist technology.

On Nov 3, 2014 5:37 PM, "David Lang" <david at lang.hm> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.adiscon.net/pipermail/lognorm/attachments/20141103/972dfe9a/attachment.html>