Re: [WebDNA] Using UNIX timestamps for dates/times
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2011
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 106752
interpreted = N
texte = same here (as for Ken). In the old days it was faster to use the [math] versions of the = date/time.. but then at some point the webdna core programmers said = that they had changed the engine so that it was just as fast to use the = real (human-readable) date/time formats. So webdna is happy, humans are = happy.. why bother tinkering for other systems? Sure when you need to.. = in those cases.. but why make more work up front? -Govinda On 2011-06-15, at 6:57 AM, Kenneth Grome wrote: > Many years ago I used to use [math]{[date]}[/math] but then=20 > I abandoned that approach in favor o storing the [date] and=20 > [time] in their default format in separate fields. =20 >=20 > Not only does this make it exceptionally easy for humans to=20 > read and understand, but storing these values in the default=20 > format makes searching easier and more intuitive, too. It=20 > make take a little more db space to store dates and times=20 > this way, but I have found this to be a non-issue. =20 >=20 > Because of this approach I can always open a db manually and=20 > know the exact date and time a record was created or=20 > updated. No longer must I waste any time using a separate=20 > script to convert [math]{[date]}[/math] back into a human=20 > readable format before I can understand it. >=20 > :) >=20 > Sincerely, > Kenneth Grome >=20 >=20 >=20 >> Hi all, >>=20 >> 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.=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> Are there any pitfalls with this setup? Do people use >> other conventions for storing dates/times? >>=20 >> Thanks >> - Tom > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list
. > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us - Govinda -------------- Old WebDNA talklist archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/index.tpl?db=3Dwebdna-talk
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
same here (as for Ken). In the old days it was faster to use the [math] versions of the = date/time.. but then at some point the webdna core programmers said = that they had changed the engine so that it was just as fast to use the = real (human-readable) date/time formats. So webdna is happy, humans are = happy.. why bother tinkering for other systems? Sure when you need to.. = in those cases.. but why make more work up front? -Govinda On 2011-06-15, at 6:57 AM, Kenneth Grome wrote: > Many years ago I used to use [math]{[date]}[/math] but then=20 > I abandoned that approach in favor o storing the [date] and=20 > [time] in their default format in separate fields. =20 >=20 > Not only does this make it exceptionally easy for humans to=20 > read and understand, but storing these values in the default=20 > format makes searching easier and more intuitive, too. It=20 > make take a little more db space to store dates and times=20 > this way, but I have found this to be a non-issue. =20 >=20 > Because of this approach I can always open a db manually and=20 > know the exact date and time a record was created or=20 > updated. No longer must I waste any time using a separate=20 > script to convert [math]{[date]}[/math] back into a human=20 > readable format before I can understand it. >=20 > :) >=20 > Sincerely, > Kenneth Grome >=20 >=20 >=20 >> Hi all, >>=20 >> 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.=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> Are there any pitfalls with this setup? Do people use >> other conventions for storing dates/times? >>=20 >> Thanks >> - Tom > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us - Govinda -------------- Old WebDNA talklist archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/index.tpl?db=3Dwebdna-talk
Govinda
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:
Processing all html files through WebCat or Typhoon (1998)
lookup and two records? (1997)
new WebDNA 5 command reference (2003)
Add to a field (1998)
Rhapsody? (1997)
WebCat2b13MacPlugIn - [include] doesn't allow creator (1997)
[ConvertChars] problem (1997)
Multi-processor Mac info ... (1997)
lookups (2000)
Looking for a Manual (1997)
User Authentication (2003)
I give up!! (1997)
WebCatalog for guestbook ? (1997)
Encrypt broken on Mac 3.05b13?? (2000)
webcat 2.1 new cart fields - please explain more (1998)
Grep Question (2003)
OS Limitations (1998)
hiding return characters (2000)
Emailer choke (1997)
ErrorMessages.db suggestion (1997)