You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@esme.apache.org by Vassil Dichev <vd...@apache.org> on 2009/08/02 21:50:37 UTC
Re: Breaking changes to the schema
> If I made breaking changes to the schema that ESME uses, how many of you
> will need a migration script from old to new?
Merging the pools branch involved breaking DB changes as well and
AFAIK there were no complaints to Dick when he asked about nuking the
DB.
The most valuable information to keep is messages, and they are
volatile info anyway- they're gone from the timeline when there are 40
newer messages. I suspect that nobody will mind, especially if the
tradeoff is a particularly compelling new feature... which we are now
only guessing :)
Vassil
Re: Breaking changes to the schema
Posted by David Pollak <fe...@gmail.com>.
I'll work on it tomorrow and check stuff in tomorrow afternoon PST.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 2:18 AM, Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> @dpp: Did you want to check-in the new schema-related changes before I
> deploy tomorrow? I didn't see any related commits?
>
> D.
>
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:00 PM, David
> Pollak<fe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My plan was to completely revise the User table to allow for multiple
> > authenication types as well as supporting message signing (the precursor
> > step to federation)
> >
> > It will be difficult to preserve the tables (including the Users and the
> > Messages) unless I plan to do so from the beginning. The cost is about
> 30%
> > more work.
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Vassil Dichev <vd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> > If I made breaking changes to the schema that ESME uses, how many of
> you
> >> > will need a migration script from old to new?
> >>
> >> Merging the pools branch involved breaking DB changes as well and
> >> AFAIK there were no complaints to Dick when he asked about nuking the
> >> DB.
> >>
> >> The most valuable information to keep is messages, and they are
> >> volatile info anyway- they're gone from the timeline when there are 40
> >> newer messages. I suspect that nobody will mind, especially if the
> >> tradeoff is a particularly compelling new feature... which we are now
> >> only guessing :)
> >>
> >> Vassil
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
> > Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
> > Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
> > Git some: http://github.com/dpp
> >
>
--
Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
Git some: http://github.com/dpp
Re: Breaking changes to the schema
Posted by Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>.
@dpp: Did you want to check-in the new schema-related changes before I
deploy tomorrow? I didn't see any related commits?
D.
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:00 PM, David
Pollak<fe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My plan was to completely revise the User table to allow for multiple
> authenication types as well as supporting message signing (the precursor
> step to federation)
>
> It will be difficult to preserve the tables (including the Users and the
> Messages) unless I plan to do so from the beginning. The cost is about 30%
> more work.
>
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Vassil Dichev <vd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> > If I made breaking changes to the schema that ESME uses, how many of you
>> > will need a migration script from old to new?
>>
>> Merging the pools branch involved breaking DB changes as well and
>> AFAIK there were no complaints to Dick when he asked about nuking the
>> DB.
>>
>> The most valuable information to keep is messages, and they are
>> volatile info anyway- they're gone from the timeline when there are 40
>> newer messages. I suspect that nobody will mind, especially if the
>> tradeoff is a particularly compelling new feature... which we are now
>> only guessing :)
>>
>> Vassil
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
> Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
> Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
> Git some: http://github.com/dpp
>
Re: Breaking changes to the schema
Posted by Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>.
@David: Change away. No need for a migration script in my opinion.
I'll just delete the DB on stax and recreate it. That is no problem.
Much more impt are the diff authentication types.
D.
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:00 PM, David
Pollak<fe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My plan was to completely revise the User table to allow for multiple
> authenication types as well as supporting message signing (the precursor
> step to federation)
>
> It will be difficult to preserve the tables (including the Users and the
> Messages) unless I plan to do so from the beginning. The cost is about 30%
> more work.
>
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Vassil Dichev <vd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> > If I made breaking changes to the schema that ESME uses, how many of you
>> > will need a migration script from old to new?
>>
>> Merging the pools branch involved breaking DB changes as well and
>> AFAIK there were no complaints to Dick when he asked about nuking the
>> DB.
>>
>> The most valuable information to keep is messages, and they are
>> volatile info anyway- they're gone from the timeline when there are 40
>> newer messages. I suspect that nobody will mind, especially if the
>> tradeoff is a particularly compelling new feature... which we are now
>> only guessing :)
>>
>> Vassil
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
> Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
> Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
> Git some: http://github.com/dpp
>
Re: Breaking changes to the schema
Posted by David Pollak <fe...@gmail.com>.
My plan was to completely revise the User table to allow for multiple
authenication types as well as supporting message signing (the precursor
step to federation)
It will be difficult to preserve the tables (including the Users and the
Messages) unless I plan to do so from the beginning. The cost is about 30%
more work.
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Vassil Dichev <vd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > If I made breaking changes to the schema that ESME uses, how many of you
> > will need a migration script from old to new?
>
> Merging the pools branch involved breaking DB changes as well and
> AFAIK there were no complaints to Dick when he asked about nuking the
> DB.
>
> The most valuable information to keep is messages, and they are
> volatile info anyway- they're gone from the timeline when there are 40
> newer messages. I suspect that nobody will mind, especially if the
> tradeoff is a particularly compelling new feature... which we are now
> only guessing :)
>
> Vassil
>
--
Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
Git some: http://github.com/dpp