sounds good. definitely sounds like a custom feature/plug-in rather than a core functionality
Scott Bennett ______________________________________________________________ Please consider the environment, before printing this email. On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Gerard Vignes <[email protected]>wrote: > i would like to see a database server that forces all application > logic to be implemented in the application itself: stripped down to > the barest functionality; i spent years building application logic > into sqlserver sprocs/udfs, but i finally saw the light and stopped > doing that; > > i'm secretly hoping that drizzle turns out to be something like a > daemonized version of sqlite: bigger, faster, and dumber; if the > database were like a machine architecture and the orm were like a > complier, then i would want to see a risc solution; > > -g > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Monty Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jay Pipes wrote: > >> Hi all again, > >> > >> I would like to propose the removal of the WEEK() and WEEKOFYEAR() > >> functions from Drizzle and the corresponding default_week_format session > >> variable, sometimes called the "week mode". > > > > Sounds fine to me. If someone really wants week() or weekofyear() they > > can write them as UDFs. > > > >> Details of these things in MySQL can be found here: > >> > >> > http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/date-and-time-functions.html#function_week > >> > >> > http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/date-and-time-functions.html#function_weekofyear > >> > >> > http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/server-system-variables.html#sysvar_default_week_format > >> > >> > >> Why am I proposing this? A number of reasons: > >> > >> 1) Simplify the date functions > >> 2) Standardize to format specifiers available in the C std library for > >> strftime() > >> 3) Removal of custom code that duplicates the strftime() and mktime() > >> functions in cstdlib (about 1000 lines of code). > >> > >> Will there be any loss of functionality? > >> > >> No. At least not any functionality that makes sense. :) > >> > >> The DATE_FORMAT() function has specifiers which enable getting the week > >> number in three formats which correspond to the strftime() format > >> specifiers: > >> > >> %U returns the week number 00-53 where week 1 is the first week > >> containing a Sunday. Days in a week preceding the first Sunday are in > >> week 0. > >> > >> %W returns the week number 00-53 where week 1 is the first week > >> containing a Monday. Days in a week preceding the first Monday are in > >> week 0. > >> > >> %V returns the week number of the year (Monday as the first day of the > >> week) as a decimal number [01,53]. If the week containing 1 January has > >> four or more days in the new year, then it is considered week 1. > >> Otherwise, it is the last week of the previous year, and the next week > >> is week 1. This format is the format specified by ISO8601:1988. > >> > >> Currently, the WEEK() function is, IMHO, overly complex and mostly > >> redundant with DATE_FORMAT() given one of the specifiers above. It uses > >> a week_mode second argument, which influences the return of the function > >> per the following table: > >> > >> Mode First day of week Range Week 1 is the first week... > >> ------ ------------------- ------- ------------------------------- > >> 0 Sunday 0-53 with a Sunday in this year > >> 1 Monday 0-53 with more than 3 days this year > >> 2 Sunday 1-53 with a Sunday in this year > >> 3 Monday 1-53 with more than 3 days this year > >> 4 Sunday 0-53 with more than 3 days this year > >> 5 Monday 0-53 with a Monday in this year > >> 6 Sunday 1-53 with more than 3 days this year > >> 7 Monday 1-53 with a Monday in this year > >> > >> If we removed the WEEK() function and week_mode variable entirely, the > >> only supported behaviours would be modes 0, 3, and 5. All other modes > >> correspond to behaviour that is contrary to any standard. > >> > >> ISO8601:1988 dictates that the first week is the one containing more > >> than 3 days in a year, and that Monday is the start of the week and week > >> numbers are numbered 1-53. Therefore modes 1, 4, and 6 produce > >> behaviour that is actually dangerous: it pretends to be ISO8601, but > >> isn't correct. > >> > >> Therefore, I propose the removal of WEEK() and week_mode. > >> > >> Here is how one might produce the identical result to WEEK() for modes > >> 0, 3, and 5 using DATE_FORMAT() properly: > >> > >> # "mode 0" > >> SELECT DATE_FORMAT("2008-01-01", "%U")+0; > >> # "mode 3" > >> SELECT DATE_FORMAT("2008-01-01", "%V")+0; > >> # "mode 5" > >> SELECT DATE_FORMAT("2008-01-01", "%W")+0; > >> > >> Please vote for whether my proposal has merit. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Jay > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Mailing list: > >> https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss<https://launchpad.net/%7Edrizzle-discuss> > >> Post to : [email protected] > >> Unsubscribe : > >> https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss<https://launchpad.net/%7Edrizzle-discuss> > >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mailing list: > > https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss<https://launchpad.net/%7Edrizzle-discuss> > > Post to : [email protected] > > Unsubscribe : > > https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss<https://launchpad.net/%7Edrizzle-discuss> > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: > https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss<https://launchpad.net/%7Edrizzle-discuss> > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : > https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss<https://launchpad.net/%7Edrizzle-discuss> > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
