B
Bill Wood
Guest
This was indeed one of the options that were considered in adding the JSON Filter Pattern. We discussed this exact alternative with the exact same model (AutoEdge | the Factory) with Peter Judge 
It was a difficult choice, but the feedback received wanted to air on the side of ease of use. As you point out the metadata on 'sugbject/operation/object' list can be converted 'easily' to an ABL Filter. But it can equally be done on the client (which was the choice we made, ultimately.) The complexity in particular related to complex heirarchical queries. The simple case of an array of 'subj/oper/obj' conditions is relatively easy, but it gets more complicated with nexted AND and OR (and NOT) conditions that make the simple temp table harder to process reliably -- the array was easy, but nested arrays was complex. This was the case that kept the choice at ablFilter. That and the desire of many ABL programmers to keep the syntax as ABL. We did leave the option of supporting different filter descriptor open in the future -- hence the name of the property: 'ablFilter'.
Continue reading...
It was a difficult choice, but the feedback received wanted to air on the side of ease of use. As you point out the metadata on 'sugbject/operation/object' list can be converted 'easily' to an ABL Filter. But it can equally be done on the client (which was the choice we made, ultimately.) The complexity in particular related to complex heirarchical queries. The simple case of an array of 'subj/oper/obj' conditions is relatively easy, but it gets more complicated with nexted AND and OR (and NOT) conditions that make the simple temp table harder to process reliably -- the array was easy, but nested arrays was complex. This was the case that kept the choice at ablFilter. That and the desire of many ABL programmers to keep the syntax as ABL. We did leave the option of supporting different filter descriptor open in the future -- hence the name of the property: 'ablFilter'.Continue reading...