Subject: Grouper Developers Forum
- From: David Langenberg <>
- To: Chris Hyzer <>
- Cc: Peter Schober <>, "" <>
- Subject: Re: [grouper-dev] gid/fid/aid
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:40:06 -0400
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Chris Hyzer <> wrote:
When I say "int", I dont mean Java int, I mean it is a whole number. It would be a whole numeric type in the DB that could be much larger than 2^32... however like I said, if you are using this for something like GID and you have an external constraint max number of 2^32 then you would have that "constraint" but not in the DB. e.g. in mysql if you look at whole number columns they are bigint(20), this would be similar. ok?
From:  on behalf of Peter Schober 
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: [grouper-dev] gid/fid/aid
* David Langenberg <> [2012-04-25 06:17]:
> If you want such a constraint (uniqueness at the database layer) why notSomehow I doubt Grouper will play a role comparable to global IP
> skip the INT datatype and use varchar? Yes, storing essentially an integer
> as a string does rub wrong, but it seems future-proof at least from the
> outset. I just worry that starting with INT will lead us to the same issue
> that we're having with IPv4 where sure in 1980 4 billion IP addresses
> seemed enough for anybody, but that sure doesn't cut it in 2012.
addressing 32 years in the future.
The University of Chicago
- [grouper-dev] gid/fid/aid, Chris Hyzer, 04/24/2012
- Re: [grouper-dev] gid/fid/aid, David Langenberg, 04/24/2012
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.