Re: [WebDNA] Using UNIX timestamps for dates/times
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2011
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 106751
interpreted = N
texte = Many years ago I used to use [math]{[date]}[/math] but then I abandoned that approach in favor o storing the [date] and [time] in their default format in separate fields. Not only does this make it exceptionally easy for humans to read and understand, but storing these values in the default format makes searching easier and more intuitive, too. It make take a little more db space to store dates and times this way, but I have found this to be a non-issue. Because of this approach I can always open a db manually and know the exact date and time a record was created or updated. No longer must I waste any time using a separate script to convert [math]{[date]}[/math] back into a human readable format before I can understand it. :) Sincerely, Kenneth Grome > Hi all, > > Following up on some of the discussion re: UNIX > timestamps recently I was wondering if anyone is using > this format as the default for storing dates and times. > I use a mixture of [math]{[date]}[/math] and > seconds_since (i.e. total number of seconds since the > WebDNA epoch date). But I was thinking that the UNIX > version might allow for better interoperability with > other systems. > > Are there any pitfalls with this setup? Do people use > other conventions for storing dates/times? > > Thanks > - Tom
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Many years ago I used to use
[math]{
[date]}[/math] but then I abandoned that approach in favor o storing the
[date] and
[time] in their default format in separate fields. Not only does this make it exceptionally easy for humans to read and understand, but storing these values in the default format makes searching easier and more intuitive, too. It make take a little more db space to store dates and times this way, but I have found this to be a non-issue. Because of this approach I can always open a db manually and know the exact date and time a record was created or updated. No longer must I waste any time using a separate script to convert
[math]{
[date]}[/math] back into a human readable format before I can understand it. :) Sincerely, Kenneth Grome > Hi all, > > Following up on some of the discussion re: UNIX > timestamps recently I was wondering if anyone is using > this format as the default for storing dates and times. > I use a mixture of
[math]{
[date]}[/math] and > seconds_since (i.e. total number of seconds since the > WebDNA epoch date). But I was thinking that the UNIX > version might allow for better interoperability with > other systems. > > Are there any pitfalls with this setup? Do people use > other conventions for storing dates/times? > > Thanks > - Tom
Kenneth Grome
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Searching for Nothing (1998)
Don'y know if this is a sily question... (2003)
REPOST: Large founditems loops (2000)
Great product and great job ! (1997)
WC2.0 Memory Requirements (1997)
shipCost problems (2000)
Keep away (1997)
Re1000001: Setting up shop (1997)
Hiding usernames and passwords in URL (1998)
[cart]'s ever get recycled? (2000)
NetCloak as Emailer substitute? (1999)
[WebDNA] Email time bug? YES, it's a bug! (2011)
Bug Report, maybe (1997)
emailer cc to figured out (1997)
Practice runs ? (1997)
[OT] Mac OSX and SSH Telnet (2000)
WebCat2b15MacPlugin - [protect] (1997)
Appendfile memory usage (redux) (2003)
oops private message leaked into talk list (1997)
RE: IIS 4 (1998)