[geeklog-devel] sid or auto increment in gl2?

[Tony Bibbs]

Perfect middle ground.  I will update the schema and 'make it so'.

--Tony

Vincent Furia wrote:

>Why not use the autoincrement as a primary key, and have an "id"
>similar to 1.3.x for accessing an item?  The key would be used
>internally for joining tables, etc, but the 'id' (which would default
>to some random value, but could be user assignable (and unique)) could
>be used for external (i.e. user) access to the item.
>
>Sorry Tony, I meant to add that suggestion to the email I originally
>sent to you, but looking back I realize I left that off.
>
>-Vinny
>
>
>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:39:21 -0600, Tony Bibbs <tony at tonybibbs.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Vinny brought up a really good point worth a good review before we just
>>run with it.  The current GL2 model has the item table with a
>>auto_increment PK.  It was suggested by Vinny that many may prefer the
>>1.3.x method of using timestamps as it more obscure (security by
>>security anyone?)
>>
>>There are two thoughts, one is that security by obscurity is a better
>>route.  The other is that the item-level security in GL2 should make it
>>so that if people guess the id because it was autoincremented, it
>>wouldn't let them have access unless they truly should.
>>
>>My only issue against the timestamp is that GL2 was hoping to support
>>multiple web servers and this could introduce some PK contention in that
>>case.  The auto_increment field would eliminate the risk of that.
>>
>>So that said, any additional arguments one way or another?  Any preferences?
>>
>>--Tony
>>_______________________________________________
>>geeklog-devel mailing list
>>geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
>>http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel
>>
>>    
>>
>_______________________________________________
>geeklog-devel mailing list
>geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
>http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel
>  
>