jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bart van der Schans <b.vandersch...@onehippo.com>
Subject Re: Mssql versus sqlserver
Date Fri, 24 Oct 2008 15:57:39 GMT
Thomas Müller wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> In almost all cases MS SQL Server is referred to with the schema name
>> 'mssql' [1,2,3,4] except for the DbDataStore [5] for which the schema is
>> called 'sqlserver'.
>
> I didn't think about that. I added support for 'mssql' in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1835
>
> The reason for 'sqlserver' is: in the DbDataStore the database type is
> auto-detected when using JDBC (the second part in the database URL, so
> for jdbc:sqlserver:xyz the default database type is 'sqlserver'.

That does explain it. Thanks for the prompt fix.

>
>> The property to set the schema is also not called
>> 'schema', but 'databaseType'.
>
> I have logged a bug https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1836
> "Persistence: support property databaseType"
> What do you think about that?
The word 'schema' has a special meaning especially for dba's so it could
be confusing. Changing it to databaseType would be better imho and would
remove the remove the need for comments like at the bottom of
http://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/UsingJNDIDataSource  ;)

A disadvantage of changing the (default) parameter name is that it can
create some clutter in the documentation. I.e. "Since 1.6 the preferred
name is databaseType instead of schema". An option could be to add
support for it now (silently), and wait a few versions before actively
'pushing' the new name.

Regards,
Bart

Mime
View raw message