incubator-bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Koželj <pe...@digiverse.si>
Subject Re: BEP-0003: Database schema changes (Was: Re: [Apache Bloodhound] Proposals/BEP-0003 modified)
Date Thu, 22 Nov 2012 06:10:15 GMT
On 21 November 2012 18:08, Olemis Lang <olemis@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/19/12, Jure Zitnik <jure@digiverse.si> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I updated the BEP-0003 with a (relatively short) draft proposal of
> > database schema changes required to support multi-product as a first
> > class citizen in Bloodhound, mostly to start the conversation on this
> > topic.
> >
> [...]
>
> Well , I'd suggest not to touch Trac tables for the moment , specially
> if we want to continue merging changes from Trac trunk into vendor
> branch .
>

We already altered the "ticket" table with the multiproduct plugin.
I would suggest that we multiproductize all entities in the same consistent
way whatever it is.


>
> IMO we should consider adding multi-product schema maybe working
> side-by-side together with Trac's ... maybe not ... and refactor Trac
>

Can we elaborate on this side-by-side thing? It might be our only option
but it definitely sounds like horrible
hack that will haunt BH to the end of it's days.

A challenge: How would we model/implement having two milestones in two
different products with the same name? The same goes for versions,
components, enum values and wikis.

The interesting Trac db model is not making things easy for us.


> code to use DAO in such a way we can override data access layer and
> make it product-aware while all other business-specific layers on top
> of it will still work .


> I mentioned this in a separate thread but IMO that discussion should
> take place in this thread .
>
> For the moment I've sent a request for comments [1]_ to trac-dev to
> explore how much feasible migration to DAO will be . If there's
> possitive feedback then it will be great news because we'll be able to
> move forward with DB enhancements we need and still merge changes from
> Trac trunk .
>

Here is to hoping but I think we should start thinking what will our
strategy be if we do not like the answer.


>
> .. [1] [RFC] DB access rewritten using DAO or alike. WAS: [BEP-0003]
> Request to reject /ticket/<product prefix>/<sequence ID> routes
>         (
> http://old.nabble.com/-RFC--DB-access-rewritten-using-DAO-or-alike.-WAS%3A--BEP-0003--Request-to-reject--ticket-%3Cproduct-prefix%3E-%3Csequence-ID%3E-routes-to34705110.html
> )
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Olemis.
>
> Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
> Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/
>
> Featured article:
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message