[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fork: Proposed Architecture Changes in 2.0
- Subject: Re: Fork: Proposed Architecture Changes in 2.0
- From: Chris Travers <..hidden..>
- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:52:39 -0800
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Roderick A. Anderson
> 2. Being able install into a schema in a database instead of creating a
> database and installing. This would allow a service provider to create
> a "company/client" database and have several applications that use it.
> In PostgreSQL terms one cluster (server) with many companies (databases)
> using several applications (schema). I have done this for LSMB via a
> manual install so it works.
I am wondering if it would be good idea to actually break parts of the
app into different schemas, but keep the naming conventions consistent
(maybe all our schemas begin with lsmb_, and all non-bundle schemas
begin with lsmb_addon_ or something). This would seem to solve the
functional problem and also allow more modularity in the design.
It would also mean that everything would be in schemas other than public.
What do folks think?