Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-tomcat-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 53323 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2002 13:16:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Mar 2002 13:16:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 7796 invoked by uid 97); 7 Mar 2002 13:16:29 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 7757 invoked by uid 97); 7 Mar 2002 13:16:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Tomcat Developers List" Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 7746 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2002 13:16:28 -0000 Message-ID: <20020307131627.29961.qmail@web20105.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 05:16:27 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Seach Subject: RE: [PATCH] change JDBCRealm to add flexibility in table layout To: Tomcat Developers List In-Reply-To: <80F5674514B4D311BAFC0040F6A45EEE243679@ntserver> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Ignacio, Forgive me if I don't understand, but it appears you are saying that JDBCRealm's use of a sub-optimal table design is *flexible* because there are ways in some databases to modify a correct schema (by adding a view) to make it work with JDBCRealm? It seems to me in this case that it is the database that is being flexible not JDBCRealm! In other words, users of databases such as MySQL or small pure Java databases like HSQL or McCoi are out of luck because we refuse a *backward compatible* patch that would allow them to work with their existing, correct db design? It seems to me that true flexiblilty in our code would be to allow JDBCRealm to work with multiple database designs without requiring the addition of views or modification of table designs. Jim Seach --- "Ignacio J. Ortega" wrote: > > De: John Gregg [mailto:john.gregg@techarch.com] > > Enviado el: mi�rcoles 6 de marzo de 2002 15:26 > > > provided, but I consider it an improvement nonetheless because I > value > > flexible designs. I would expect the MySQL users to > > a flexible design is what you get in JDBCREalm, dont misinterpret me, > the db design you've been proposing is the "Right One" :) I'm not > discussing that, but i think flexible design is the one that lets > you > achieve your goals without modiying the code, i'm achiving your goals > without modifying the code, ergo the Actual JDBCRealm is flexible > enough > to suit your needs, hence proved the first hypotesis.., JDBCRealm is > flexible enough already :) > > Do you want, finally, to solve some flaws in MySql, as the lack of > views? well not a problem, but is something that is very bad for my > taste ( and my taste was modelled after some of our local gurus) > > Anyone has other comments? > > Saludos , > Ignacio J. Ortega > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: