|
From: Everson D. <DAE...@AG...> - 2001-09-13 22:03:12
|
I did not hit the "reply all" button. -----Original Message----- From: Everson Dave To: 'jon...@us...' Sent: 9/13/01 2:51 PM Subject: RE: [ipn-devel] "Audit Trail" Information in Database I like the idea of having all four columns regardless of the fact that we have partner_id already on the table. Today partner_id may represent a single person, but in the future I can see a partner_id having several users associated with it. For example a huge missionary may be considered a partner, but may have several people who enter prayer requests on behalf of that partner. Or am I completely off base with this example? As for keeping release one simple, I don't see the big deal in adding columns since we have nothing right now. I see these as project standards/guidelines so that we have consistency in all the tables created. I have been on projects in the past where we add these after the initial release. That is just a huge pain to go through all the database tables and the code to support these new fields. Just trying to save some time in the long run. -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Carlson [mailto:jon...@ya...] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 3:02 PM Cc: ipn...@li... Subject: Re: [ipn-devel] "Audit Trail" Information in Database 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 _______________________________________________ ipn-devel mailing list ipn...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ipn-devel |