Uwe Grauer wrote:

>OK, i also give my 2cents:
>
>You have the Problem, that you need records witch really were deleted,
>it's what i would call bad database design.
>Why not do it in the following way:
>Do not physically delete records. Mark them deleted.
>This way you can still have the log of user-deletes. Sometimes
>you will need it because for example in the bankers-business you have
>to be able to tell from whom and when a record was deleted.
>There are soo many possibilities to do this kind of work, that
>i do not want to cont them now, but i really had to do it this way.
>
>
>What do you think about this way to do it?
>
>

I also do things this way quite often. I agree that it's a good
solution. However, I think it would be even better if the engine could
handle itself.
This kind of approach only lets you handle deletes : you can't restore
an old version of a record. Theoretically, you could take the same
approach for handling updates, but this would be even more complex!

Jonathan Neve.