Re: [Fofredux-devel] cache_time on feeds

[Kevin <ke...@dr...>]

Evan Roth wrote:
> The cache_time has an attribute of 'ON UPDATE CURRENT_TIMESTAMP'.  
> This is obviously new in redux, since the original FoF did not use 
> cache_time.  i was doing some tests last night, and it seems that the 
> first TIMESTAMP field in a table gets this attribute automagically 
> from ADODB (which was also not included in FoF, iirc).

This is mysql doing it, not ADODB_Lite.   If you enable FOF_DB_DEBUG,  
you can see all the SQL sent to the database. I can reproduce this with 
Mysql 4.1.11.  The first timestamp column added to a table gets this 
attribute set.(ON UPDATE CURRENT_TIMESTAMP)  If I reverse publish_time 
and cache_time in the table create statement, then publish_time get's 
this *feature*, instead of cache_time.

Have you created a bug for this yet?   I'll add it if I have time 
today.**  

<...>
> one could argue that the cache_time is not important, since we have 
> publish time...but often they are largely different for me:
> 1.  being in germany, and reading mostly stuff from the homeland...i 
> am dealing with 6-9 hrs difference, which could not come through.  
> ie.  published at 12:00 local time EST, but cached at 18:00 local time 
> CET.
We convert all timestamps to GMT internally. (well, unix epoch seconds)  
which should eliminate timezone problems, at least in the DB.  You can 
configure what your local time offset is on the options page.   This is 
used when timestamps are displayed on the view page.  We should probably 
make this smarter by allowing a timezone string to be entered instead of 
an hour offset value.
> 2.  and the most important point for me...often times there is a delay 
> from when content is published to when it shows up in an rss feed.  
> hence, we get a new item 2 hrs after it was really published, and 
> therefore, it won't show on the top of the list.
>
> i'd prefer to be able to sort my items by cache_time, rather than 
> publish_time, to see the new items (to me!) always at the top.
>
Allowing the sort column to be configurable is on the feature list, I think.

-Kevin