on 1/31/04 8:59 PM, Robert Brenstein at rjb At rz .DOT uni-potsdam.de wrote:
>> on 1/31/04 7:39 PM, Robert Brenstein at rjb@rz.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.
It is intended to store INTERNAL DB CLOCKs value.
Probably it will get value automatically
--
Best regards,
Ruslan Zasukhin [ I feel the need...the need for speed ]
-------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: ruslan At paradigmasoft .DOT com
web: http://www.paradigmasoft.com
To subscribe to the Valentina mail list go to:
http://lists.macserve.net/mailman/listinfo/valentina
-------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Valentina mailing list
Valentina@lists.macserve.net
http://lists.macserve.net/mailman/listinfo/valentina
©2004 Ruslan Zasukhin |
