Re: [Catalyst] One App, multiple databases
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:53 PM, Jose Luis Martinez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Basically we giving multi-tentant capability to our app (which was ported > from some old CGIs). The CGIs where setup to load config files based on the > REMOTE_USER, so we gave each user a separate DB just by changing the connect > string. Now in Catayst we want the same effect ;), as sharing one database > between all users is a step we don't want to take (for the moment). I've achieved something similar to this by connecting to the user-specific database where appropriate via an effective model-like (non cat) module in the Root/auto portion of the application. This works well-enough for my purposes, but you might want to call out to a dedicated service if you want to achieve better persistence than this would otherwise afford. Chris ___ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] One App, multiple databases
Mesdaq, Ali escribió:
Are these db's exact copies as far as schema from each other? Or is it different tables and structure as well?
Reason I am asking is because if its exactly the same and all your queries work
the same and your logic works the same as well and the only difference is if
user1 is connected then connect to one schema and if user2 is connected connect
to another schema you might be able to more cleanly determine the db in your
controller code. You would also then create a model for each user. This would
give you granular control over if the user db's ever move or if you need to
configure specific connection data per users db like different user accounts
and passwords etc.
So instead of something like:
$c->model('DB::Blah')->all
Yes, they are exactly the same. But I'm not really all that keen on
creating one model per user (because the users would be created and
deleted), and that would mean that will have to be added and deleted,
and app servers restarted.
But I think knowing a little more about your exact situation might help
understand the issue more.
Basically we giving multi-tentant capability to our app (which was
ported from some old CGIs). The CGIs where setup to load config files
based on the REMOTE_USER, so we gave each user a separate DB just by
changing the connect string. Now in Catayst we want the same effect ;),
as sharing one database between all users is a step we don't want to
take (for the moment).
Hope that explains a bit more.
Thanks,
Jose Luis Martinez
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk
Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Re: One App, multiple databases
kevin montuori escribió: i'm wondering why you wouldn't have two models with different connection information but that use the same schema? Because I wouldn't want application code touched for every user created or deleted... Every user will have a new db, and user creation should be automatable. Adding new model classes would imply restarts for every user added / deleted. i might be mistaken, but it seems that tying a user to a physical database circumvents some of the abstraction MVC provides. Exact same schema for every user. I think It's really the same level of abstraction. The app only uses one database per user. No info from databases of other users is needed. Regards, Jose Luis Martinez [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] need to patch Test::WWW::Mechanize::Catalyst
Ash Berlin wrote:
On 19 Nov 2008, at 20:21, Jason Gottshall wrote:
My recent patch to 5.80 trunk (svn rev 8612) enables the setting of a
default virtual hostname via import:
use Catalyst::Test 'MyApp', { default_host => 'virtual.com' };
Based on my reading of the Test::WWW::Mech::Catalyst source, some minor
changes would need to be made there in order to use the same semantics
with Mech::Cat. Should I try to patch this myself, or is there a
maintainer out there who can make it happen?
The maintainer is Léon Brocard. But send a patch and make his life
easier :)
Patch attached. I hope it really was as easy as it looked. Did I miss
anything?
--
Jason Gottshall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- orig/Test/WWW/Mechanize/Catalyst.pm 2008-10-27 09:50:54.0 -0400
+++ new/Test/WWW/Mechanize/Catalyst.pm 2008-11-19 15:58:40.0 -0500
@@ -98,8 +98,10 @@
package Test::WWW::Mechanize::Catalyst::Aux;
sub import {
-my ( $class, $name ) = @_;
-eval "use Catalyst::Test '$name'";
+eval {
+require Catalyst::Test;
+Catalyst::Test::import(@_);
+};
warn $@ if $@;
}
___
List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk
Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] need to patch Test::WWW::Mechanize::Catalyst
On 19 Nov 2008, at 20:21, Jason Gottshall wrote:
My recent patch to 5.80 trunk (svn rev 8612) enables the setting of a
default virtual hostname via import:
use Catalyst::Test 'MyApp', { default_host => 'virtual.com' };
Based on my reading of the Test::WWW::Mech::Catalyst source, some
minor
changes would need to be made there in order to use the same semantics
with Mech::Cat. Should I try to patch this myself, or is there a
maintainer out there who can make it happen?
Thanks!
Jason
--
Jason Gottshall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The maintainer is Léon Brocard. But send a patch and make his life
easier :)
___
List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk
Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
[Catalyst] need to patch Test::WWW::Mechanize::Catalyst
My recent patch to 5.80 trunk (svn rev 8612) enables the setting of a
default virtual hostname via import:
use Catalyst::Test 'MyApp', { default_host => 'virtual.com' };
Based on my reading of the Test::WWW::Mech::Catalyst source, some minor
changes would need to be made there in order to use the same semantics
with Mech::Cat. Should I try to patch this myself, or is there a
maintainer out there who can make it happen?
Thanks!
Jason
--
Jason Gottshall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk
Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
RE: [Catalyst] One App, multiple databases
Are these db's exact copies as far as schema from each other? Or is it
different tables and structure as well?
Reason I am asking is because if its exactly the same and all your queries work
the same and your logic works the same as well and the only difference is if
user1 is connected then connect to one schema and if user2 is connected connect
to another schema you might be able to more cleanly determine the db in your
controller code. You would also then create a model for each user. This would
give you granular control over if the user db's ever move or if you need to
configure specific connection data per users db like different user accounts
and passwords etc.
So instead of something like:
$c->model('DB::Blah')->all
You could do:
$c->model("$user:Blah")->all
But I think knowing a little more about your exact situation might help
understand the issue more.
Thanks,
--
Ali Mesdaq (CISSP, GIAC-GREM)
Sr. Security Researcher
Websense Security Labs
http://www.WebsenseSecurityLabs.com
--
-Original Message-
From: Jose Luis Martinez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:54 AM
To: The elegant MVC web framework
Subject: [Catalyst] One App, multiple databases
Hello,
This question has been asked a couple of times on the list, and I have
found yet another solution to it, but I would like to hear if maybe I'm
doing something wrong, or I will suffer serious pain by doing it my way :)
We have an app that will connect to one database or another depending on
the logged in user.
My solution:
package App::Model::DB;
use strict;
use base 'Catalyst::Model::DBIC::Schema';
...
sub ACCEPT_CONTEXT {
my ($self, $c) = @_;
my $user_db = $c->lookup_the_users_db();
$self->config->{'connect_info'}->[0] =~ s/#DATABASE#/$user_db/;
$self->schema->connection(@{$self->config->{'connect_info'}});
return $self;
}
1;
I've done the same with Catalyst::Model::DBI:
package App::Model::AnotherDB;
use strict;
use base 'Catalyst::Model::DBI';
sub ACCEPT_CONTEXT {
my ($self, $c) = @_;
my $user_db = $c->lookup_the_users_db();
$self->{'dsn'} =~ s/#DATABASE#/$user_db/;
return $self;
}
1;
And the two seem to be working OK, but I'm worried about what will
happen when we fire it up in a FastCGI environment (I suspect the
connection to user1's database will be kept live, and the next user
will get the connection to it). Am I right? Any pointers?
Does this way of using the models trigger any warning lights to Catalyst
gurus?
Thanks in advance,
Jose Luis Martinez
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk
Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Protected by Websense Hosted Email Security -- www.websense.com
___
List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk
Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
[Catalyst] Re: One App, multiple databases
> "JLM" == Jose Luis Martinez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: JLM> We have an app that will connect to one database or another JLM> depending on the logged in user. i'm wondering why you wouldn't have two models with different connection information but that use the same schema? i might be mistaken, but it seems that tying a user to a physical database circumvents some of the abstraction MVC provides. k. -- kevin montuori [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
[Catalyst] One App, multiple databases
Hello,
This question has been asked a couple of times on the list, and I have
found yet another solution to it, but I would like to hear if maybe I'm
doing something wrong, or I will suffer serious pain by doing it my way :)
We have an app that will connect to one database or another depending on
the logged in user.
My solution:
package App::Model::DB;
use strict;
use base 'Catalyst::Model::DBIC::Schema';
...
sub ACCEPT_CONTEXT {
my ($self, $c) = @_;
my $user_db = $c->lookup_the_users_db();
$self->config->{'connect_info'}->[0] =~ s/#DATABASE#/$user_db/;
$self->schema->connection(@{$self->config->{'connect_info'}});
return $self;
}
1;
I've done the same with Catalyst::Model::DBI:
package App::Model::AnotherDB;
use strict;
use base 'Catalyst::Model::DBI';
sub ACCEPT_CONTEXT {
my ($self, $c) = @_;
my $user_db = $c->lookup_the_users_db();
$self->{'dsn'} =~ s/#DATABASE#/$user_db/;
return $self;
}
1;
And the two seem to be working OK, but I'm worried about what will
happen when we fire it up in a FastCGI environment (I suspect the
connection to user1's database will be kept live, and the next user
will get the connection to it). Am I right? Any pointers?
Does this way of using the models trigger any warning lights to Catalyst
gurus?
Thanks in advance,
Jose Luis Martinez
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk
Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
