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

[Everson D. <DAE...@AG...>]

 
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