You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@turbine.apache.org by Mike Haberman <mi...@ncsa.uiuc.edu> on 2001/06/12 19:12:44 UTC
proposal for no blobs
Hello all,
I would like to propose that we remove blob fields from the
following tables:
permission, role, group, user
I am not sure of the purpose of the fields. Were they meant to be
a catch all of some sort?
Here's why:
1. For a your basic web app, these fields won't be needed.
2. If you do need to add more fields to the individual tables,
a better design would be to just extend off the base class and add the
additional fields that you do need, or create another table that
has a foreign key into one of the aforementioned tables. A great
use of torque anyway.
3. If you are using a database that doesn't support blobs, you need
to remove or re-map the fields anyway.
4. We can tidy up the documentation. We really don't need to tell
people how to patch their jdbc driver to add blob support. Assuming
if one's wants blob support, they will chose a database that supports
it or they will have to knowledge to patch the jdbc driver themselves.
While we are on the subject, at one point their was discussion of
renaming the group table. People seem to be confused of how
we use the group table with how they are used to thinking about
groups. What if we rename the table to realm or project realm?
mike
--
-------------------------------------------------
I am Vinz, Vinz Clortho. Keymaster of Gozer,
Volguus Zildrohar, Lord of the Sebouillia.
Are you the Gatekeeper?
-------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: proposal for no blobs
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 6/12/01 10:12 AM, "Mike Haberman" <mi...@ncsa.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> permission, role, group, user
+1 +1 +1 -1
I say -1 on User unless you provide equal functionality/implementation of
data.setPerm
To this day, I still feel that data.setPerm is a good idea in some cases.
However, I'm up for discussion on the actual implementation of that method.
> While we are on the subject, at one point their was discussion of
> renaming the group table. People seem to be confused of how
> we use the group table with how they are used to thinking about
> groups. What if we rename the table to realm or project realm?
Please see/modify the security proposal.
-jon
--
"Open source is not available to commercial companies."
-Steve Ballmer, CEO Microsoft
<http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: proposal for no blobs
Posted by Jason van Zyl <jv...@apache.org>.
On 6/12/01 1:12 PM, "Mike Haberman" <mi...@ncsa.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
>
> I would like to propose that we remove blob fields from the
> following tables:
>
> permission, role, group, user
+1
When the security system stuff is generated with Torque there
will be no need for blobs. I don't think they are very useful
either as you can't really use the values in the blobs for
queries because you have unserialize them which would probably
cause some undesirable overhead.
>
> I am not sure of the purpose of the fields. Were they meant to be
> a catch all of some sort?
>
> Here's why:
>
> 1. For a your basic web app, these fields won't be needed.
> 2. If you do need to add more fields to the individual tables,
> a better design would be to just extend off the base class and add the
> additional fields that you do need, or create another table that
> has a foreign key into one of the aforementioned tables. A great
> use of torque anyway.
Yup, I think Martin is going to take a stab at using Torque to
generate everything.
> 3. If you are using a database that doesn't support blobs, you need
> to remove or re-map the fields anyway.
Another good point.
> 4. We can tidy up the documentation. We really don't need to tell
> people how to patch their jdbc driver to add blob support. Assuming
> if one's wants blob support, they will chose a database that supports
> it or they will have to knowledge to patch the jdbc driver themselves.
Yet another good point :-)
> While we are on the subject, at one point their was discussion of
> renaming the group table. People seem to be confused of how
> we use the group table with how they are used to thinking about
> groups. What if we rename the table to realm or project realm?
Yup, there is a proposal about the security system on the site. You
might want to take a look at that and add your points to the xdoc.
I was trying to encourage people to place their views in the proposals
because when we actually start discussing all these things it's nice
not to have to go hunting through email messages.
I totally agree with removing blobs :-)
>
> mike
>
>
--
jvz.
http://tambora.zenplex.org
http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine
http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity
http://jakarta.apache.org/alexandria
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org