>on 1/31/04 7:39 PM, Robert Brenstein at rjb /at/ rz .DO.T uni-potsdam.de wrote:
>
>>>> -- option to have automatic time stamping of all or specific fields
>>>> in a baseobject (updated only when content changes)
>>>
>>> Yes, we have add DB.Clocks(), and TIMESTAMP field.
>>
>> Is the TIMESTAMP an internal field (handled automatically by kernel)
>> or it is a field for us to use explicitely? Ideally, a field would
>> have a property "timestamp" settable through Field_SetFlag() and then
>> we have a call Field_GetTimestamp() to find the current value. It
>> should also be properly handled through SQL, so we can easily find
>> records with fields that were modified after specific timestamp.
>
>This is new field type.
>Actually it is ULLONG.
>
>It looks we have not yet polish this field type.
So what is the advantage of this new field versus my using a normal
long field to store a timestamp? This is what I do now.
Robert
_______________________________________________
Valentina mailing list
Valentina@lists.macserve.net
http://lists.macserve.net/mailman/listinfo/valentina
©2004 Robert Brenstein |
