On 1/7/04 4:44 PM, "Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net> wrote:
>> hm I disagree. if someone is going to add prefix to the tables, you >> better >> abstract them through the conf file.. > > > I think this is moving towards over-engineered. The only possible thing > that you might want to put into a config file is the table prefix. My particular reason for wanting a prefix was for organizational purposes. I would personally use something like MAIL or dbmail_ or something else so that I could keep all the dbmail related tables grouped together. Another benefit would be to make it a LOT easier to have only my tables replicated in MySQL using the wildcard pattern in the conf file. In one particular project, we will likely have the aliases and users tables managed one on server and replicated over to the actual dbmail server. > I > feel that this is a solution in need of a problem. Have we actually > heard from people that they are having name collision problems becuase > they share their dbmail database with other applications? I would think > that anyone setting up dbmail has to configure the MTA and other asorted > items, the idea that they would be constrained to one database doesn't > seem logical to me. I agree with your sense of logic here. I think we need a prefix AT LEAST. Abstracting the table names out may not be necessary in the real world. > If this is really a problem, perhaps it would be > better to allow the user to specify a schema to put dbmail tables in > (does mysql support schema's?). not that I'm aware of. Brian
