> On 04 Dec 2015, at 17:25, Norbert Hartl <norb...@hartl.name> wrote: > >> >> Am 04.12.2015 um 16:40 schrieb Henrik Johansen >> <henrik.s.johan...@veloxit.no>: >> >> >>> 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. :/ >> > Wouldn't it then be possible to include a timestamp class in Mongo?
yes, but why duplicate? (*if* ZTimestamp is good, I would adopt it) > > Norbert
