Yeah, but this is what's confusing me. As far as I can tell the documentation suggests that they've been reliable since v3 or so, or earlier unless you're using a Mac version of hotsync. So why is the final word in all these conversations "Yeah we agree, but don't use them"? They're either a solid and reliable mechanism for long-term record referencing or they're not.
And the reason I'm hammering is this is because maintaining your own unique ID is only easy for your own databases. I'm frequently asked to link behaviour to records in the standard Palm OS databases (contacts, memopad, etc). For these databases the Palm OS uniqueID is the only reference point available. Even in your own databases - why duplicate a mechanism already provided by the OS? I no longer have any requirements to support OS's earlier than 3.5 - to your knowledge are the UniqueIDs unreliable in 3.5? Chris Tutty From: "Ralph Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If you want to build relationships you are better off using a record ID that > you control. It is not difficult to allocate and maintain your own unique > record IDs and it will work regardless of the OS version. Keep the last or > next allocated ID in the appinfo and work from there. > > "Chris Tutty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hi, > > > > I've avoided the UniqueIDs maintained by Palm OS in the past because > > of my memeory to do with them not surviving a reset (or was it resyncing > > the db that killed them?). I was talking to someone recently who > suggested > > that under Palm OS 5+ UniqueIDs could be used to maintain references > > between databases for the lifetime of the application. Has something > > changed? > > > > Chris Tutty. > > > > > > > > -- > For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see http://www.palmos.com/dev/support/forums/ -- For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see http://www.palmos.com/dev/support/forums/
