Thomas Mueller wrote:
Hi Aaron,
Will you change static 'dbmail_' to a configurable prefix? I for example
have the problem that I use dbmail tables from several other programs
(config GUI, MTA, web server, ftp server, ...) so I can't simply rename
the tables.
It is exactly because of these ancillary applications that I believe we need
the prefixes; organizing the tables that belong to DBMail, the tables specific
to your GUI, etc, all in the same database is important from a database
management perspective.
Yes I totally agree, I always wanted to have these prefixes.
That said, the condideration for 2.1 was that its options should default to
whatever hardcoded values were used in 2.0. So if we let 2.0 out the door
without prefixes, then 2.1 would need to default to a prefix of "".
That's fine, use prefixes and use "dbmail_" as default for 2.0, but the
prefix should be configurable.
I have no problem to use my current cvs version several more weeks until
I have time to rename the tables and adopt and test all my software. The
problem I see is that others might be in the same situation and because of
that dbmail will be less well tested than it should and could be.
Since everybody seems to be disagreeing, I'll have my say.
Yes, it's late. Our/my release engineering has been bad, but..: These
DB-prefixes are important. I don't want to offend anybody who's been
using 2.0 already, but for 1.2.x users, the migration should be painless
(except for external tools referencing the database).
I don't want to change this in 2.1, because we'll get the same problem then.
Ilja
