Tickets :: Comment on [#11124] decode_attribute hook an exceptions

Search Results: 4 of 27 [ <<First <Prev Next> Last>> ] [ Return to Search Results ]

* Your Email Address
* Spam protection	Enter the letters below: .__ . ..__ .___._. [__)\|\/\|[__)[__ \| [__)\| \|[__)\| _\|_
Comment	> >> This is debatable, but I don't see a reason to artificially limit >> which fields we allow to pass through the hook, just for code-flow >> reasons. >> > A composite field is defined in terms of "turba-attributes" > (left-hand side of the map), > this is different from directly to "backend attributes" mapped > "turba-attributes". > What is passed to the hook as the value of a composite field? > I can't imagine a situation, where a composite field and a hook for > that field makes sense. > I'd always use a direct mapping and do the other work in the hook. > Isn't a composite field not some kind of simple inline hook? > >> Well, maybe we could return an array in >> Turba 4 instead, with a boolean as the first element, whether the hook >> has been called. > Is it possible to do it the old-fashioned way, pass the value by > reference, and return a > status code? >
Attachment
Watch this ticket