• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: On SQL fully qualified names and how to implement them in EO models
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: On SQL fully qualified names and how to implement them in EO models


  • Subject: Re: On SQL fully qualified names and how to implement them in EO models
  • From: "Morris, Mark" <email@hidden>
  • Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 15:12:18 +0000
  • Thread-topic: On SQL fully qualified names and how to implement them in EO models

Hi Angelo,

I don’t really have anything constructive to add to what others have already said. I’ve always had a app user database login, separate from the table owner(s). (This allows you to restrict what the app can do, such as only insert into audit tables.) Then, in Oracle anyway, you can create a synonym in the app user schema to point to the table, no matter which schema it’s in. Another option, if they’re all in a single "table owner" schema, is you can set a default schema name for the app user.

You have the flexibility to get as custom as you need to. For example, I had another application once where the table names actually had to be changed dynamically (not my design!). The schema for most of the tables was repeated over a hundred times, once for each customer, with a different suffix. Instead of modeling it over and over I intervened in the SQL generation to substitute the currently active customer suffix. The result hid all of the complexity nicely.

Anyway, good luck with your project. :-)

Regards,
Mark

On May 4, 2015, at 7:04 PM, Ângelo Andrade Cirino <email@hidden> wrote:

> Hi Mark,
>
> I thought about it too, but it would be a non-standard solution, since each developer could use a name for the property. To be more precise, I abandoned this idea after working to change the FrontBase plug-in and SQLHelper to use EOSchemaSynchronizationFactory. The code that will use the schema name property is so deep down in the Wonder framework that using a non-standard property name could lead to serious problems.
>
> What’s your opinion on the validity of adding the schema name as an explicit property for entities? Is it worth the effort?
>
> Angelo
>


 _______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:

This email sent to email@hidden


References: 
 >On SQL fully qualified names and how to implement them in EO models (From: Ângelo Andrade Cirino <email@hidden>)
 >Re: On SQL fully qualified names and how to implement them in EO models (From: "Morris, Mark" <email@hidden>)
 >Re: On SQL fully qualified names and how to implement them in EO models (From: Ângelo Andrade Cirino <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Is there any problem with EOUtilities.localInstanceOfObject
  • Next by Date: Entity Modeler SQL generation exception
  • Previous by thread: Re: On SQL fully qualified names and how to implement them in EO models
  • Next by thread: Some help with FrontBase and SQL generation (migrations mainly)
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread