[TYPO3-core] XAVIER PLEASE! was: Re: RFC: #12652: Value Preview of empty timestamp shows "01-01-70 (-40 yrs) "

David Bruchmann typo3-team-core at bruchmann-web.de
Sat Dec 12 16:05:39 CET 2009

Von:        Xavier Perseguers <typo3 at perseguers.ch>
Gesendet:   Mittwoch, 9. Dezember 2009 08:00:54
An:         typo3-team-core at lists.typo3.org
Betreff:    Re: [TYPO3-core] XAVIER PLEASE! was: Re: RFC: #12652: Value 
Preview of empty timestamp shows "01-01-70 (-40 yrs) "
> Hi,
> Mathias Schreiber [wmdb >] wrote:
>> Dmitry Dulepov schrieb:
>>> If we want to do it properly, we should change all date/time fields
>>> from int to datetime and use those. Then we can assign proper
>>> defaults (such as '0000-00-00' and '2099-12-31' and do very simple
>>> checks in SQL.
>> Good idea.
>> Are there any implications with DBAL or do adoDB's datetime functions
>> cover this change?
> ...
> But I agree that some kind of date/time datatype would self be "better".
> [1]
> http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/database-solutions/a-comparison-of-oracles-date-and-timestamp-datatypes-6681


as I wrote in 
<mailman.6509.1260189177.615.typo3-team-core at lists.typo3.org> 
date/time-fields aren't properly handled by ODBC. Using the ODBC-AdoDB 
we will have the same undefined NULL-Values like now where empty means 
the same as 0 or 1.1.1970 [1].

When the decision for real timefields will be realized someone has to 
get involved with ODBC-development that these faults in ODBC are fixed, 
else the new possibilities won't be available when TYPO3 is used with ODBC.

Best Regards

1) http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/date-and-time-types.html (Last 
Sentence on Page)

More information about the TYPO3-team-core mailing list