>on 1/31/04 10:41 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.
>>>
>>> It is intended to store INTERNAL DB CLOCKs value.
>>>
>>> Probably it will get value automatically
>>
>> But what will trigger the update? Any change to a record containting
>> a timestamp field? Or can it be associated with a specific field? In
>> other words, will the automatic process be associated with SetField
>> or with UpdateRecord/NewRecord? I gather it will be triggered in
>> either case by any call, even if the content is not truly changed.
>
>Not remember now.
>I will ask tomorrow.
>
>Probably any INSERT/UPDATE of record, should change it.
>
>Again, this is not polished.
>
Okay. You know what I am after. In the meantime, I have to implement
this myself as I need it now :)
Robert
_______________________________________________
Valentina mailing list
Valentina@lists.macserve.net
http://lists.macserve.net/mailman/listinfo/valentina
©2004 Robert Brenstein |
