Kevin, > You're right.
Strange happenings indeed ;-) > After the release of 0.8, it became clear that the PackageHub wasn't > the right answer anyhow. If you're hooking up multiple apps, you'd > really need to be able to specify a URI for each path. (If everything > is in one database, this is not a problem). A path-based hub is > possible, but will also require some additional tool support in > tg-admin sql. > > This should improve as more work is done to deploy multiple apps > behind one server. Should PathHub be built on PackageHub? If yes, then I guess fixing this to use PackageHub is worthwhile. To my thinking PathHub should mean a combination of package and path being used. But rather than just use the path an arbitrary string to be added to the package would also be useful. My application could then group all the databases it creates into one package and then use a namespace within that. The sub namespace might be from the path. But it might not. It could also come from the domain, from a user record or from some other source. Therefore in the controllers and/or model something needs to change so that the connection is got by calling a method on PathHub passing the request so that the correct bits can be pulled out and used to decide which database to use. Now for the tools like tg-admin we need a way of passing the path as a string to be added to the package. It woudl also be handy to have a database listing mechanism which lists all the existing databases for a package. That is going to be db specific. Am I on the right lines? Dave
