That was back in the mid 1980s.
-Adrian
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
360! Who nowadays works still with such hardware ?
Jacques
From: "Adrian Crum"
David E Jones wrote:
Yes, I agree... let's leave it all as-is. The number is a limit to
the size and has nothing to do with the actual amount of spa
360! Who nowadays works still with such hardware ?
Jacques
From: "Adrian Crum"
David E Jones wrote:
Yes, I agree... let's leave it all as-is. The number is a limit to the
size and has nothing to do with the actual amount of space required to
store the field... ie it is a VARCHAR and will onl
David E Jones wrote:
Yes, I agree... let's leave it all as-is. The number is a limit to the
size and has nothing to do with the actual amount of space required to
store the field... ie it is a VARCHAR and will only use the space
required for the length of the actual value.
Just a little side
I agree with you that it needs to be longer than 20 characters, and my
vote on changing it would be no also.
But, I did have an issue when I first started using OFBiz because the
255 length caused index keys to exceed the maximum length allowed by my
database. I changed the length to 100 on my
I am fine with your, Andrew & Jacques thoughts on this.
Thanks & let's keep it as it is.
--
Ashish
David E Jones wrote:
Yes, I agree... let's leave it all as-is. The number is a limit to the
size and has nothing to do with the actual amount of space required to
store the field... ie it is a
Yes, I agree... let's leave it all as-is. The number is a limit to the
size and has nothing to do with the actual amount of space required to
store the field... ie it is a VARCHAR and will only use the space
required for the length of the actual value.
Whatever the case, if it's not hurti
It don"t think we should change that. In DB only characters used are taking
place so I don't see the trouble
Jacques
From: "Ashish Vijaywargiya"
Thanks Andrew for your reply.
I agree on your point that in some companies they prefer email address
for user login.
I am fine by not changing it
Thanks Andrew for your reply.
I agree on your point that in some companies they prefer email address
for user login.
I am fine by not changing it but instead of keeping length 255 , 100
would be good option on data base perspective (I think :-) ).
I don't have any specific reason in my mind fo
I don't know about this, what if I used my (or yours for that matter)
email address as my userLoginId andrew.zene...@hotwaxmedia.com that is
31 right there. Its really tough to say how much space is needed for
such a field. 100 might be enough, but it is the change worth it? My
vote is no,
Hello,
Yesterday I was reviewing few entities, then I realized that we are
using "id-vlong" for the fields acting as foreign key & referring to the
"userLoginId" of the UserLogin table.
"id-vlong" = VARCHAR(255) is too much space for saving the userLoginId.
At max I can think of userLoginId t
10 matches
Mail list logo
