THANK YOU!! Finally, someone else sees how flexible UDT can be. I have been using UDT for one of my clients and we see more and more possibilities as we add features. Calculated fields (as we call them) are very important to us. We've skirted developing them by providing triggers for the data table. The work-around has to be explicit for module and field IDs, but it works, and it's actually quite easy to implement. Trust me when I say that we plan on implementing this feature, if it doesn't come out soon, tho. We've currently added a host of features (i.e. optional updated by and update date columns, field options to display drop-down lists for certain fields, conditional formatting, row visibility, and content filtering). There is so much more we have to add. We're about to roll out Excel export, too - that has got to be one of the easiest additions, yet.

Anyway, back on topic, my suggestion would be to reference the name of the field instead of the number. The reason for this is because it's sometimes hard to remember what number a field is, whereas the names are usually easier to remember. There are pros and cons either way, but I think the name would be a tad easier and more readable.

---

Michael Flanakin | Microsoft Consulting Services
www.michaelflanakin.com

As Sebastian mentioned, I am not part of the UDT project. I hope I didn't give off that impression. All of the work I have done with the UDT has been in support of a number of my clients and is not part of the DNN UDT Module. I work with the UDT Module like everyone else When a need arises, I extend the core module. I hope that clears up and misunderstandings. Don't want to lead anyone astray with the intentions of the UDT project! I'm simply here to add my 2 cents

---

Michael Flanakin | Microsoft Consulting Services
www.michaelflanakin.com