> On 04 Dec 2015, at 17:22, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: > > According to http://bsonspec.org/spec.html there are indeed 2 different types > > "\x09" e_name int64 UTC datetime > > "\x11" e_name int64 Timestamp > > I would guess that you need 2 different (sub)classes in Pharo if you want to > honour this spec. It has little to do with the almost empty TimeStamp > subclass of DateAndTime having been removed. This is an API design issue > (decide on the Pharo to BSON type mapping).
yes, often in databases datetime and timestamps are different beasts. That’s why I was thinking on importing a real timestamp, to honor mongo design… but I need to review what mongo (and others) consider actually as a timestamp :) Esteban > >> On 04 Dec 2015, at 16:40, Henrik Johansen <henrik.s.johan...@veloxit.no> >> wrote: >> >> >>> On 04 Dec 2015, at 3:49 , Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Yes I think… I still do not update voyage to Pharo5 (there are not >>> TimeStamps anymore). >>> >>> Esteban >>> >>>> On 04 Dec 2015, at 15:43, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: >>>> >>>> Does it make sense to have >>>> >>>> Name: ConfigurationOfVoyageMongo-EstebanLorenzano.38 >>>> Author: EstebanLorenzano >>>> Time: 9 May 2015, 8:40:27.23963 am >>>> UUID: 9ba71817-b3f9-4f66-8579-e09e5deb5935 >>>> Ancestors: ConfigurationOfVoyageMongo-EstebanLorenzano.37 >>>> >>>> fixed a problem with the versionner tool >>>> >>>> in the Catalog for Pharo 40? >>>> >>>> Stef >>>> >>> >>> >> >> I found this to be kind of a big deal when trying to remove deprecations in >> 4.0, as TimeStamps and DateAndTime are mapped to different BSON classes... >> If you change Documents to use DateAndTime now instead of Timestamp now, and >> write them to a legacy database, they will save just fine, but Mongo will >> give errors if you try to sort documents by that field due to incompatible >> types. :/ >> >> Cheers, >> Henry > >
