Joe Huber was kind enough to clarify Joe Strout's statement for me. I had definitely misunderstood and now completely understand. Sorry if my post scared anyone else who relies on the GetSaveInfo string -- see Joe Huber's email below. The sky is definitely not falling. ;-)
I should really stop trying to do so many things at once. It's making my email reading a bit careless and rushed... --Dave ------ Forwarded Message from Joe Huber >If true, that's certainly a frightening discovery for me. I've >always found that storing the GetSaveInfo string of a folderitem in a DB or >XML file (Base64-encoded) to always work when retrieved later as long as the >user has not moved or deleted the folderitem that it references. Dave He didn't say there was any reliability issues in going from SaveInfo to a folderitem. He simply pointed out that a SaveInfo string might not be unique for a given file. Meaning that SaveInfo obtained on one day MIGHT be diffeent from SaveInfo obtained on a second day, even though each would reliably reference the same file. Imagine that the SaveInfo MIGHT contain a date reference for some reason. It could still work perfectly to reference the intended file but it MIGHT not match another SaveInfo string for the same file. Thus SaveInfo may not be a good dictionary key was his primary point. Lack of uniqueness does not imply unreliability. Regards, Joe Huber ------ End of Forwarded Message _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
