I disagree on getting 2.0 out the door first. Table prefixes are critical infrastructure for people who may have to share a single database with tables for different applications. Since we may already need a migration script / program to get 1.2.x people up to 2.0, table prefixes won't hurt much.
Aaron Ilja Booij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Hi, > On 7 Jan 2004, at 16:51, Brian Blood wrote: > > > for 2.0, can we add a parameter to have a prefix for dbmail owned > > tables? > > > > Or, even better, have the table names be abstracted out of the code > > conf > > options. > Sounds like a good idea. I'd like to postpone it to a later time > though. I think we should first get 2.0 out of the door and add new > features after that. > > But of course, if you need this and like to start working on it, that > would be greatly appreciated :) > > Ilja > -- > IC&S > Stadhouderslaan 57 > 3583 JD Utrecht > telnr. 030-6355730 > faxnr. 030-6355731 > > PGP-key: > http://www.ic-s.nl/keys/ilja.txt > > _______________________________________________ > Dbmail-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev > --
