: My current thought on #1 is that we probably don't want to change the : internal lookup mechanism used by IndexSchema unless we gain : significant power by doing so. I'm not sure I currently see it. : : My thoughts on #2 is more on a case-by-case basis. For the simple : case of a point class with two fields indexed separately, referencing : a suffix that should be defined as a dynamic field vs referencing a : type seem pretty close. The latter, while perhaps slightly simpler : for the user, seem to introduce a lot of hidden complexities. I'm : less concerned than Hoss is about name clashes, but much more : concerned about those complexities.
...this was ultimately my point. Name clashes were a concrete example i was trying to use to illustrate the (broader) complexity that seems involved in trying to develope a generalized PolyField system that is 100% transparent to both end users and schema creators. My personal view is that none of this stuff should be transparent to the schema creator: we shouldn't try to hide things from them -- having defaults so they don't have to worry about some details is fine, but they should have control over those details if they want. That said: although i have an opinion, it's not a particularly strong opinion. Since i appear to be the minority here (and feel reasonably confident that i've explained my concerns well enough that you guys understand me point even if you don't agree with it) i'll just say i'm +1 at leaving the schema creator entirely in control of the names created by PolyFields; and -0 at having fields created entirely transparently; ... and leave it at that. -Hoss
