Rafal Krzewski wrote:
> ...I've come to the conclusion that we really
> don't want thte MODIFIED column to behave like a timestamp (mysql style), but as
> ordinary (non-magical) date/time field. It was discussed on the list some time
> ago (see http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg04041.html
> and followups). I tend to think that setting MODIFIED=NOW in setPerm is a bad
> idea, because there are things that change in the perm hasthable we wouldn't
> like to consider a modification of the user data - notably the access counter.
> We probably should have a method setModifiedNow() method that the application
> will call right after changing some perm value that is considered important.
>
> Comments?
Thank you for addressing the question I raised in that post you referenced. My
only comment is that "considered important" is a little misleading. I think you
mean "persistent" fields, i.e. entity information instead of session
information.
-- Travis Low
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://dawnstar.org/travis>
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
