Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote:
> We could limit voting to only those who tried to pass an object. I don't
> know if its a good idea, but if we do this, there will be no need for
> voting tables.
> Alexey Parshin wrote:
>> A question, before I start implementing this structure. We agreed that
>> difficulty level doesn't affect access to UMO. So, from any
>> standpoint, it is just a number on the screen. Implementing this
>> number, however, requires the vote counter and average vote. This, in
>> turn, requires a table per UMO type. Now, the question:
>> Does implementing a community difficulty level worth implementing 5..7
>> tables plus corresponding stored procs?
>> I can, of course, make an economy class implementation - all UMO'
>> votes in the single table (victimize the data integrity).. But still?
>> I'm starting after your command.
>> 2006/12/16, Anatoly Volynets < email@example.com
>> I don't remember that agreement, but I need two part difficulty level
>> (one part set for Repository by community, another set within the
>> course or between courses of this author by this author) as I
>> described it.
Anatoly Volynets, Co-Founder
Authoright © Total Knowledge: 2001-2008