On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Tom Browder <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 it probably ought to be some kind of time struct (as you mentioned) on
the object itself. I'll look into that instead of the attribute route.
Now I see that that may be the route for attr stamping. Each attr has a
unique index number (I think it's constant except when one is removed) that
could be used as a key to identify its create and mod time stamps in the
parent object's time struct. I'll also look into that.
-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
