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:
Security (1998)
WebTV (1998)
Adding multiple items to cart with one click? (2000)
RE: Cart Template (1997)
banner ad redirection page (1999)
Exclude by date - multiple (1997)
hidden databases (2000)
Re:multiple digests, please stop (1997)
Error.html (1997)
RE: [WebDNA] Windows FastCGI thisurl issues (2018)
RequiredFields template (1997)
log out (2001)
creating a 60 fields database (1997)
AppleScript question (1997)
MacAuthorize order data fields WAS:How To question... (1997)
Converting a Magazine to a Web Site with WebCat (1999)
Version f1 status (1997)
Resume Catalog ? (1997)
[WebDNA] Simple Date Format Conversion (2008)
Erotic Sites (1997)