E Witteveen wrote: > Michiel Meeuwissen wrote: > > >[x] +1 (YES) > > > > > ps: about the checksum, can't this be handled by a lastmodified field?
Yes, that would be a possibility. (I suppose that you mean 'an 'automatic' field like 'lastmodified''). That could well be the way on which I'll implement it. Actually it would be nice then if the field-type-definiton can accept parameters (in this case, the field of which it must be check-sum). That is an issue which must be sovled for 1.8, I think. > (there is a theoretical possibility that 2 images have a matching > checksum) Indeed, but I suppose this possibility is astronomically small, if at least we choose something like MD5 or so. > I must say that i like the idea of putting a unique key on the checksum, > but i dont know if this is wanted in all setups (something with > security not showing all images) That does not matter, because when checking unique-keys beforehand (a feature which is completely missing at the moment btw), you can simply ignore security. Michiel -- Michiel Meeuwissen mihxil' Mediacentrum 140 H'sum [] () +31 (0)35 6772979 nl_NL eo_XX en_US _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
