On Thu, 11 May 2000, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> Unfortunately, if you happen to edit the date-typed-in by mistake,
> there is no way of finding the error by looking for recently entered
> (or recently changed) transactions.
The only "edit" should be to set it to "now".
> Also, if the date-changed is to be used for audit, it won't be much use
> if it is easy to change.
>
> Also, if we are to be doing audits, it would be useful to retain
> the old transactions after a change
I don't think that this is the appropriate place to retain an audit trail.
That is already handled by the logging functions.
> Also, if we are going to be doing all this, we should record the name of
> the person making the change.
YES. In any multi-user situation, this is often a requirement.
> In Linux, would a numerical user-id be sufficient?
If you mean to automatically derive it from the running process, NO.
The current process may be a proxy for multiple users. If we are using this
feature, it should be able to be either automatic or require an
authentication login process.(configurable). In either case, the id should be
presented as a short alpha string. The storage in the JE could be a small
integer index but that is something best hidden from the interface.
