Disclaimer: This discussion has been going on way to long and it has already turned nasty to the point were I just gave up discussing it any further. But as Don made comments in a dissmissive way about my believes and work in public I feel personally offendend and want to ractify. I just hope that this does not result in a flame war as past experience has at least shown to me that this kind of thing is bad for the community, especially if happening between the founder and one of the most active members.
Now let's get started 😊
Let's put it this way. I have three clients with user data of each around 20.000 customers with 40.000 contact people. Within these I find that we have around 1000 contacts who are using the same e-mail address. These are distinct people (read: parties).
The unique constraint on emails is on *parties*, which is a table, if I'm not mistaken, that has *nothing* to do with users, because groups and organizations could be parties as well. So, to answer your question: If two *PARTIES* have the same e-mail, I use *username* in my system to log them in. Which is my whole point. Do not use email for the login of *users* but username. Username is part of the users table, emails is part of the parties table. There are more parties than users in the system, so it does not make sense to limit the parties in my opinion due to the fact that you need a uniqueness on login, which you are giving to real person (aka users).
As for the Oracle delay, would you mind publicly stating which CVS commits from myself you refer to with regards to fixing Oracle? You keep on telling that I'm responsible for delaying the 5.2 release when I thought we established that the code change, though made after the code freeze and therefore a mistake on my behalf which I already apologized for, has not caused any delays in terms of broken code.
Taking that my memory might be bad in that the previous point I just wanted to make that the reason for this exchange (a three line code change...) has actually the capabilities of the dire consequences of breaking code which I wont be able to fix.
http://xarg.net/tools/cvs/change-set-details?key=22705
So, maybe I am exaggerating a little bit (which is different from hand waving, unless my command of the english language is not good enough). But I stand by my point that we have more unique constraints than we need.
