> > Actually, the type/category stuff will be essential to make Subsurface > aware when some specific field is required... eg. is it a camera? so, let's > include a field to store the resolution (of course, it's just an example - > I think that we should avoid having specific fields, since users could add > extra info in a kind of 'comments' field - however, some equipment must > have specific fields - like cylinder) ... >
Yeah, avoid where possible. I don't think there's need for anything except some notes for *most* items. It might be useful later down the line for reporting capabilities. "Show me all dives where I used my Buddy BCD" etc. > I got your point and I also would love to have more comments about it. > But as I mentioned above, it would not be hard to know that a specific > equipment requires specific fields - so it would work fine anyway, in > addition, it seems to be much more consistent (all equipment following the > same structure). > So perhaps we go along the line of including cylinders, see what the implementation looks like, and we could revert to the existing system if we need to. Also think about migration of existing Cylinder/weights/suit data.
_______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list subsurface@subsurface-divelog.org http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
