Hi, I can See the use case for using the james db for other Things too. So adding prefixes is not the worst idea....
Bye Norman Am Donnerstag, 30. Dezember 2010 schrieb Eric Charles <e...@apache.org>: > Hi, > > There are 2 opened JIRA for this: > https//issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMAP-228 Name JPA Database Tables and > Columns > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMAP-233 jpa mapping files > > The first JIRA is about adding annotations in the JAVA entities to fix the > databases and column names so they will be the same for every database > vendors. > We can discuss if we need to add a JAMES_ prefix to the table names or if we > should advice to use a dedicated table space for James database. > > The second JIRA is about having external mapping XML files so the > administrator could always rename/adapt the database structure and related > queries. > > Both JIRA need to be implemented before 3.0 release. > > Tks, > > Eric > > PS: I have copied serv-...@james.apache.org > > > On 30/12/2010 03:31, hanasaki wrote: > > This is not really an issue. > You can make two name spaces with userIds to access them too: > - id = jamesSmtp > - id = liferayPortal > > Happy holidays! > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Database table names > From: Mint Nick <mint.office.n...@gmail.com> > To: general@james.apache.org > Date: 12/29/2010 07:47 PM > > > Hello all, So, I've run into a snag, I thought this might be a great > place to propose a change. I'm storing everything onto a PostGre > database and noticed that both James and Liferay have tables named > subscription. Since we are about to release a new version of James, > how about adding prefixes to the tables for enhanced compatibility? > Maybe something as simple as Jsubscription, or AJsubscription? Just a > thought. It would certainly make things easier. > > > >
