Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand how is this
different from having a bunch of separate fields. The CompositeField
adds a namespace, but foo.bar_x=1 seems to be no harder to read than
foo.bar.x=1. I must admit that this field solves another problem well:
it makes easier to copy se
Let me give a hearty YES to this proposal. I have been told that a
composite field, like this, is a violation of good database design,
and that a 'true' relational database cannot have this feature. That
is why the guy who designed the database I helped implement in 1982
did not call his design '
