On Jul 14, 2017, at 4:21 AM, David Adams via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote: > > Does that all sound about right? Am I missing reasons why I would want to > use object fields. vs. text fields? Any other technical details that people > have learned or figured out?
I’d add that using an object field is only meaningful if your objects have a variable structure, that is, objects differ among records not just by contents but have a variable internal structure. If all objects in all records share a common structure, that is, they all have the same attributes (even if some are optional and may be empty/null), then go with standard 4D fields. As you pointed out, they take a lot less space, can be individually indexed/keyworded, are easier to deal with, their usage is syntax checked by compiler, etc.. Just my $.02 -- Julio Carneiro jjfo...@gmail.com ********************************************************************** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) FAQ: http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com **********************************************************************
