On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Ron W <ronw.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is it not possible to define an open-ended list of name-value pairs? >
i've forgotten the English word (and maybe there isn't one): "jein" Sure we can, but then we've got a data format nobody can predict, which doesn't sit well with me (at the API level). Projects A and B might both define the custom field "foo" and give them different semantics: one being a list and one being a free-form text field. The JSON API cannot know what semantics to apply to them, like it can with well-defined (non-custom) fields. More off-hand thinking: A new ticket from Jira (or other) would just be a > "new ticket" request with accompanying field data, including the Jira ID. > Which the JSON API has to then understand, and confirm that your customized fossil schema can deal with. That flexibility is a huge burden, in terms of implementation effort, for the JSON bits. Not impossible, just more effort than i ever felt like putting into it (because i so rarely use the ticket system). -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
