Re: Possible breakage

From: Andrus Adamchik (andru..bjectstyle.org)
Date: Sat Aug 16 2008 - 16:38:11 EDT

  • Next message: Kevin Menard: "Re: Possible breakage"

    Expanding on this some more...

    So we may have a DataMap (or DataDomain) flag saying "Use target table
    schema when accessing PK generation helper objects". By default this
    will be false (current behavior), resulting in default schema for PK
    generation objects. If a user expects naming conflicts (i.e. there is
    a "schema1.table1" and "schema2.table1" in the same mapping), they can
    change that to "true", and then we'd use "schema1.auto_pk_support" for
    tables in schema1 and "schema2.auto_pk_support" for tables in schema2.
    This ports nicely into sequence based PK generators (i.e. each pk
    sequence will be created in the target schema, preventing any
    possibility of conflicts). Another benefit is that it is backwards
    compatible.

    Andrus

    On Aug 16, 2008, at 11:20 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:

    > I have doubts about this approach, aside from the fact that we will
    > force an upgrade step on everyone using schemas. How is this going
    > to work with sequence-based pk generators?
    >
    > Maybe the PK generation supporting objects themselves should be
    > prefixed with schema names (as an option I guess) instead of storing
    > the schema in the lookup table?
    >
    > Thoughts?
    >
    > Andrus
    >
    >
    > On Aug 16, 2008, at 10:58 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
    >> In order to fix CAY-539 and CAY-730, I'm changing the default
    >> JdbcPkGenerator use fullyQualifiedNames. For anyone not using a
    >> schema,
    >> this shouldn't be a problem. For those using schemas, but relying on
    >> Cayenne to ignore them, they're going to have to delete the schema
    >> in order
    >> for things to work.
    >> In theory this all should be fine . . . getFullyQualifiedName()
    >> falls back
    >> to getName() if appropriate. However, this is used by a fair
    >> number of the
    >> DbAdapters and I want to make sure that I haven't broken anything.
    >> Thus,
    >> testing on as many DBs as possible would be nice. I'd appreciate
    >> any help
    >> in this regard, whether it come from Hudson or other team members.
    >> Otherwise, I'll be a bit reluctant to make the change, just because
    >> I don't
    >> want to break anything on anyone. I'll obviously test on whatever
    >> platforms
    >> I can.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Kevin
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sat Aug 16 2008 - 16:38:42 EDT