[ZWeb] DISCUSS: Misfeature in migration
Tue, 21 May 2002 13:02:01 +0000 (UTC)
Yes, it was also discussed in another context on the CMF list recently.
The consensus there was to use modification_date (DateTime) as the
property and ModificationDate (ISO string derived from it, for
catalogging), and we could also have creation_date/CreationDate (for new
content only obviously).
Olivier Deckmyn <email@example.com> wrote:
> This is what I use to do in my websites.
> +1 so.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Philippe Jadin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <Zope-Web@zope.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 9:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [ZWeb] DISCUSS: Misfeature in migration
> > On Sun, 19 May 2002 10:21:06 -0400 Paul Everitt <email@example.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Howdy all. I just realized something about the content migration that
> > > might be an issue.
> > >
> > > Basically, the creations/modification date for all zope.org content will
> > > be moved to the date of the migration. We'll have no idea whether
> > > something is two years old or two days old.
> > >
> > > Do people think we can live with this?
> > It could be a good idea to have the script create a new property,
> > like publication_date containing the source bobobase modification time...
> > Philippe
Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France)
+33 1 40 33 79 87 http://nuxeo.com mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org