Re: [ipn-devel] "Audit Trail" Information in Database

[Jonathan C. <jon...@ya...>]

If someone else wants to respond too, please do.

I think this is a good idea.  My goal with the first release was to keep 
everything as simple as possible, but I don't think this would 
complicate things much.   Are you going to convert the datamodel to the 
Torque/Peers XML spec?  If so, feel free to add these columns for each 
table if no one else brings up a better suggestion or argument against it.

How about these column names?

CREATE_TIMESTAMP
MODIFY_TIMESTAMP
CREATE_USER_ID
MODIFY_USER_ID

For some of the tables, we will already know who created the row.  For 
example, PRAYER_ITEM rows can only be created by the Partner in the 
PARTNER_ID field.  Is there a consensus that we should always have the 
same four coulmns even if one of them duplicates another column?  I can 
see the argument both ways.

Depending on how integrated the current PARTNER table is with the 
TURBINE_USER table, we may want to change all of the PARTNER_ID columns 
to USER_ID to be more clear that they are referring to the same set of 
values.

Jonathan


Everson Dave wrote:

>Do you guys think that their is value in adding common audit trail type of
>information such as create date, modify date, create user id, modify user id
>for each row (object) stored in the database?  I think there is a lot of
>value to this type of information and we should implement it from the onset.
>
>This leads into a question of if we need to capture before/after snapshots
>of data attributes as they change.  For Phase I, this may not be that
>critical.  What are your thoughts on this? 
>
>Dave
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>ipn-devel mailing list
>ipn...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ipn-devel
>



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com