Yeah, makes sense.
On Sep 16, 5:00 pm, villas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > I think only the dev team can explain exactly why Cake is the way it > is. However, I thought that you'd probably answered your own > question :-) > > Many of us do not use MySql and we are delighted that so much effort > is being made to develop Cake in a DB-agnostic way. The idea is that > Cake developers can change the DB back-end just by changing a config > file. It is a wonderful concept and we wouldn't want to spoil it by > introducingunsignedinteger field-types if that reduces the > portability of our code without any good reason. > > On Sep 16, 10:59 pm, Brenton B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Really, no one knows? For serious? > > > On Sep 13, 9:47 pm, Brenton B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So, in MySQL I can create a table with a field that has type integer > > > withunsignedinteger, which as we all know will define the length to > > > 10 and doubles the maximum possible value. > > > So why doesn't the `schema` console function take this into account? > > > For my specs, the chances of having more than 2,147,483,647 records is > > > pretty negligible, but still ... > > > > I'll chalk this up to storage-type dependency ... (ex: MySQL can do > > >unsignedints, but others can't) ... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CakePHP" group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
