[geeklog-devtalk] geeklog-devel digest, Vol 1 #500 - 5 msgs

[geeklog-devel-request at lists.geeklog.net]

Send geeklog-devel mailing list submissions to
	geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	geeklog-devel-request at lists.geeklog.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
	geeklog-devel-admin at lists.geeklog.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of geeklog-devel digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. sid or auto increment in gl2? (Tony Bibbs)
   2. Re: sid or auto increment in gl2? (Vincent Furia)
   3. Re: sid or auto increment in gl2? (Tony Bibbs)
   4. Re: sid or auto increment in gl2? (Dwight Trumbower)
   5. Re: sid or auto increment in gl2? (Tony Bibbs)

--__--__--

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:39:21 -0600
From: Tony Bibbs <tony at tonybibbs.com>
To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
Subject: [geeklog-devel] sid or auto increment in gl2?
Reply-To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

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

--__--__--

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 22:57:04 -0500
From: Vincent Furia <vfuria at gmail.com>
To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] sid or auto increment in gl2?
Reply-To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

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

>


--__--__--

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:00:54 -0600
From: Tony Bibbs <tony at tonybibbs.com>
To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] sid or auto increment in gl2?
Reply-To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

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

>  

>



--__--__--

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 09:10:39 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] sid or auto increment in gl2?
From: "Dwight Trumbower" <dwight at trumbower.com>
To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
Reply-To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

I'm assuming what you are really talking about is a primary key and an
index. All gl2 and plugins should use the primary key and if someone
wanted to enhance their site, they could use the index.


> 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

>>

>>

>

> _______________________________________________

> geeklog-devel mailing list

> geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

> http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel

>



-- 
Dwight Trumbower

--__--__--

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:40:16 -0600
From: Tony Bibbs <tony at tonybibbs.com>
To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] sid or auto increment in gl2?
Reply-To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

Correct.  The PK will be auto_incremented.  The 'index' would be a 
timestamp or user entered value.

--Tony

Dwight Trumbower wrote:


>I'm assuming what you are really talking about is a primary key and an

>index. All gl2 and plugins should use the primary key and if someone

>wanted to enhance their site, they could use the index.

>

>  

>

>>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

>>>

>>>

>>>      

>>>

>>_______________________________________________

>>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


End of geeklog-devel Digest