Re: Schedule decision

• To: netcdf-hdf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Subject: Re: Schedule decision
• From: Quincey Koziol <koziol@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 10:16:01 -0500 (CDT)

> Quincey Koziol <koziol@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> >     I was planning on including a hidden field to disambiguate objects that
> > were created at the same time, so this wouldn't happen.  Since there's no
> > advantage to using a creation order field instead of using the creation time
> > when determining the n'th object inserted into a group (when factoring 
> > deleted
> > objects into the equation), I'm still leaning toward using a time instead 
> > of an
> > index for this purpose.  Using the time provides the same functionality and
> > adds information as well.
> >
> >     I'm still somewhat split on the issue however and would welcome 
> > persuasive
> > arguments in favor of one mechanism or the other.  :-)  I'm also thinking 
> > about
> > including both fields (creation order and creation time) and allowing users 
> > to
> > create an index on either, to suit their particular needs...
> 
> Quincey,
> 
> What happens is a machine with an inaccurate time adds a variable to a
> dataset?

    It'll get the "wrong" creation time and inserted in the index
appropriately, as you'd expect.  I don't think this is a major problem though,
because I don't think that most files will get edited on multiple machines in
a very short timeframe.

    Quincey

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Schedule decision
    • From: Albert Cheng
  • Re: Schedule decision
    • From: Mike Folk

• References:
  • Re: Schedule decision
    • From: Ed Hartnett