On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 2:14 AM, eliott <eliott@cactuswax.net> wrote:
On 6/3/08, Loui <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue,  3 Jun 2008 20:25:33 +0200
>  Sylvester Johansson <syljo361@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Hey Sylvester.
>  I think I like this method better than the other. Could you fix the
>  indentation (especially in function query), put a more descriptive
>  commit message, and resubmit? Thanks.

I already outlined on the bugtracker why I thought this wasn't exactly
a great idea, as it was implemented.
oh well.

This is a different implementation than the one discussed on the bugtracker. The difference is that with this, you can specify on the client-side what fields the json result should contain, while the other was set server-side. There is no sql joins going on, so it would be a performance increase due to the fact that currently the rpc clients have to do N+1 databasel queries, where N is the number of hits on the initial search. This cuts it down the number of queries to one.