added a comment -
03/Sep/10 10:49 AM -
edited This patch adds support for two new configuration properties that affect the MarcCombiningReader:
marc.combine_records.left_field - tag of a control field to use for matching on the left side of a comparison (current record)
marc.combine_records.right_field - tag of a control field to use for matching on the right side of a comparison (next record)
If either of these fields is omitted, it will default to 001 (the current behavior).
A few notes/comments --
1.) The findControlField() method seems like overkill. Is there an easier way to achieve this effect? The marc4j documentation mentioned a getControlField(String) method, but I couldn't get it to work.
2.) I'm not sure if "left" and "right" are the best way to convey the values at work here -- if somebody wants to suggest better language, I'll be happy to change this.
3.) I would like to put together some tests for this new feature, but I'm not sure of the best approach. Suggestions are welcome.
4.) Only ControlFields are supported -- I'm not sure if it's necessary to support other field types, but I didn't need it for my purposes, so I didn't bother.
New Feature
Resolved
Minor
marc.combine_records.left_field - tag of a control field to use for matching on the left side of a comparison (current record)
marc.combine_records.right_field - tag of a control field to use for matching on the right side of a comparison (next record)
If either of these fields is omitted, it will default to 001 (the current behavior).
A few notes/comments --
1.) The findControlField() method seems like overkill. Is there an easier way to achieve this effect? The marc4j documentation mentioned a getControlField(String) method, but I couldn't get it to work.
2.) I'm not sure if "left" and "right" are the best way to convey the values at work here -- if somebody wants to suggest better language, I'll be happy to change this.
3.) I would like to put together some tests for this new feature, but I'm not sure of the best approach. Suggestions are welcome.
4.) Only ControlFields are supported -- I'm not sure if it's necessary to support other field types, but I didn't need it for my purposes, so I didn't bother.