On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Christopher Sean Morrison
<[email protected]>wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2013, at 11:29 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
...
> Note that it'll also be highly desirable to timestamp all objects (not
> just their attributes) ... and stash those timestamps as attributes. So
> this would imply we're even time-stamping our timestamps, which is of
> course ridiculous.
>
> It might be worth creating a timestamp struct (not in string form). That
> would reduce the memory footprint overhead substantially and let them be
> optional (null pointer implying unset).
>
Looking at the draft db5 format manual it seems to me that adding a time
stamp to an object is pretty straight forward (the easiest way is to add an
attribute), but time stamping an attribute would require a mod of the
attribute on-disk format which is essentially a new db version.
So the question is: do we want to time stamp attributes?
In the meantime, I can start working on adding automatic object time
stamping attributes (creation and mod times) if that's okay. (IMHO, such
attributes should not be subject to user update or removal through the attr
command.)
Best,
-Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn the latest--Visual Studio 2012, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, more!
Discover the easy way to master current and previous Microsoft technologies
and advance your career. Get an incredible 1,500+ hours of step-by-step
tutorial videos with LearnDevNow. Subscribe today and save!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58040911&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
BRL-CAD Developer mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
