On May 21, 2026 11:44:51 PM PDT, Joachim Lindenberg <[email protected]> 
wrote:
>>That's a good thought, too. I'll have to dig in a little and see how feasible 
>>that is - I'm not sure if historical records have any notion of an "owner" at 
>>the moment, so it would probably have to be done by comparing the username of 
>>the ConnectionRecord with the current user.
>>
>>-Nick
>
>I have to warn about using names instead of ids. Names can change or collide, 
>whereas ids should not.
>
Internal, unique IDs are indeed already used in the database for all objects.

- Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to