On 22 October 2015 at 10:43, Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > For reasons I don't understand, it appears that even string > fields which are marked as optional get a 'has_XXX' flag, > to distinguish betweeen a NULL string and an unset string. > I struggle to imagine why we need this. It makes sense for > integer/boolean types, but I would have thought just checking > for NULL was sufficient for string types.
I think the argument here is pure consistency. *Every* optional field should be implemented as has_fieldname (bool) plus fieldname (actual value). Special casing string types because we happen to have a special value we can use to indicate 'no string' seems to me like it would cause more confusion than it would be worth. thanks -- PMM
