Re: Re: [pear-webmaster] Re: [PEAR-QA] Thought about unmaintained package (Net_IRC in this case)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:08:37 +0100, Klaus Guenther <klaus@capitalfocus.org> wrote: > Sean Coates wrote: > > Daniel Convissor wrote: > > > >> To save on database columns, etc, I'd suggest putting the word > >> "unmaintained" in the deprecated column and when performing output, > >> have an if statement that displays an appropriate message. > > > > > > At risk of sounding trollish, mixing data types like this is bad for the > > database. > > > > In this scenario, a column that would normally be DATETIME or INT type > > now becomes VARCHAR. > > Not quite... because the idea is to add two columns: one for the name of > the package that supercedes it and the other for the date/time of the > depreciation. Since the name of the package would be a tinytext field (I > suppose), it wouldn't do any harm to simply put "unmaintained" in there. > > On the other hand, what you say below is true. In fact, I'd almost > suggest linking based on package ID rather than package name (if it > depends on user input, it could make a mess if someone enters a package > that is not in the DB). I'd suggest a selection box something like for > maintainers... but n to 1 selection... But maybe that's overkill. At any > rate, even if "unmaintained" in the field signifies unmaintained status, > it probably would be best to put that in the interface as a checkbox. Hmmm...links you say... /me points to DB_DataObject_FormBuilder. > > Come to think of it, a package may be maintained but depreciated... And > another unmaintained but not depreciated. So I guess the best way to > solve the problem is to simply add a field indicating whether a package > is maintained or not. > > Klaus > > > It's akin to putting delimited data in a single column, IMO. An > > additional column to denote an additional property is the way to go. > > > > In a small DB, this won't matter (but is still poor design), in a larger > > one, it will. > > > > S > > > -- Justin Patrin