Hi,

On 12/12/12 2:30 PM, Gary Martin wrote:
o Database schema changes

1. Can we be exact with altered table list?

BEP-0003 updated with the list, currently SQLs targeted at enum, component, milestone, version and wiki tables are translated.

2. Something that we might forgot: What about 3rd party plugin tables that
reference multiproductized Trac tables?
Will probably need to proclaim these incompatible when more than one
product is in effect?

Good point. To keep track of records from tables from third party plugins, this approach doesn't quite work. I would have thought that we would be better off using a separate table to keep track of the resources that belong to a product. Is this another area that has not been updated based on discussions?

The current SQL translator implementation would show 3rd party plugins a view of translated tables that would only include resources from the currently selected product scope. If the plugin makes a reference to a resource by it's name everything should work fine as the reference would be consistent each time when in that specific product environment (as the plugin would always get the same view of the database).

Things start breaking if there's a resource with the same name in multiple products, unless the translator is changed to return names with product namespace being prefixed to the actual resource name for example. The plugins would get version name 'BH:1.0' instead of '1.0' for example. Still, this doesn't solve the problem entirely as the plugin (that's not aware of products) would end up (in it's own tables) with references to different resources from different products and maybe that's not exactly what's expected to happen...

Keeping track of resource belonging to a product using a separate resource mapping table also unfortunately doesn't solve the issue. We'd need to change the schema anyway as in the current database model, all tables have 'name' column as their key. We could of course reference the same resource from different products using the separate mapping table but we'd be referencing the same record and changing the name of that record would change the resource in all products which is, at least imo, not what we want.


o Administration commands

This implies that we will have two different modes of operation (multi
product and single product) which will have to be chosen at
installation? Is this necessary? I can imagine users will start with single product because it will be perceived simpler but will have additional work
to do when the need for second product arises.

I struggle to see a reason to support a deploy-multiproduct admin command at the moment, partly because I don't see a reason to go beyond providing a basic product path based namespace resolution. More on that below..


I think that we only have one mode of operation and that is multi product. Installation should initially setup a 'default' product and give the users the ability to add products as needed.


o Product resources namespaces

I remember there have been some debates on this a few weeks ago and it
seems this sections does not reflect them or any consensus if there was one.

There may well not have been consensus so it is probably worth someone attempting to review those discussions to see if there was much we could agree on. However, I seem to remember that it ended with the suggestion that webserver configuration should be able to sort out most url schemes so we probably shouldn't worry about direct support.


+1

Using a path based approach should be good enough for now and I would suggest dropping others for consideration as a later enhancement - such a later enhancement could just be a bit of documentation of course if that is considered enough.

o Per product repository

Maybe many-to-many? There are all sorts of things out there in the wild.
But probably not common enough to warren phase 1.

Per product repositories does make good sense but it may be a good simplification to avoid worrying about it too early. We should be able to work with a set of globally defined repositories so we should make sure that works first.

+1

Cheers,
Jure



Reply via email to