On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 03:51:54PM +0200, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>
> I disagree. Auditing should ideally be done by a different system and be
> implemented by someone else than the original developers. Also with the
> many OSS apps out there it would require essentially a fork to add auditing.
Note that I wasn't suggesting that the person who wrote the code
should also do the auditing; just that it should be _built in_ to the
application. It doesn't strike me as hugely complicated to add
triggers to a system that captures changes (even in a generic way --
we know this from the Slony project, which does exactly that). It's
not free from performance worries, though.
Adding some piece of intermediate stuff that could interfere with the
ACIDity of the system (and that's what this scripty thing is
advertised as) surely can't be the remedy for the problem where you
think your developed code needs an audit trail?
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness.
--George Orwell
