Albert: The solution you are proposig seem to be very clean. For doing that some fieldos should be blobs. However in the current DB Schema is not clear to me that this can be done. On the other hand searches in blobs could be very slow. Andres Albert P. Calame wrote:
Greetings! While this would represent a lot of work, I'm sure, the solution would be to have a cataloguing mode that allowed input of data directly into a MARC record structure. The record structure allows for single (sub)field size of 9999 characters, which should be more than enough to meet your needs. Maximum record size is 99999 characters, but that is ample. The average MARC record runs under 3000 characters. Something to think about, surely.
Al Calame Librarian-at-Large Montreal, Canada
Andrés Tarallo wrote:
We are making some fixes into our production instalation. We noticed that the input field in cataloging only allows 255 characters and is an input field. We have currently resume fields that are much larger than that (about 3000 characters).
We re trying to develop a way to make our templates aware of the fact that a field is large enough to be better input in a text field insted of an input field. We want to develop something more generic.
An idea we have: having in the system preferences a list of fields that may contain large values. When we're about displaying an input field we should take into account the systems preferences.
We will accept your fedback, we hope we can contribute this back to the CVS.
Andres