Subject | RE: [IB-Architect] Database names |
---|---|
Author | Leyne, Sean |
Post date | 2000-05-04T02:25:15Z |
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Starkey [mailto:jas@...]
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 5:59 PM
To: IB-Architect@egroups.com; IB-Architect@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [IB-Architect] Database names
Storing the configuration of the DB inside the db seems to be
"perpetuating" some of the existing problems that some users have right
now. Breaking master-shadow relationships, moving the location of
master/secondary files. An external storage location for some of this
information only seems to make sense (perhaps the individual db's
information could be "synchronized" from the master source).
I am not advocating the use of the registry, an ASCII table, an XML
structure, or a gdb (although I have my own thoughts). I think we need
to look at the features/functions which need to be supported (something
I'm afraid has been lost in the as this thread has developed), and then
we can have the "knife" fight about implementation.
Sean
From: Jim Starkey [mailto:jas@...]
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 5:59 PM
To: IB-Architect@egroups.com; IB-Architect@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [IB-Architect] Database names
>Sorry, no. I want to configuration stuff in a blob in the database.
>You mean for each given database Alias, declare a potentially different
>authentication repository? Sounds great.
>
Storing the configuration of the DB inside the db seems to be
"perpetuating" some of the existing problems that some users have right
now. Breaking master-shadow relationships, moving the location of
master/secondary files. An external storage location for some of this
information only seems to make sense (perhaps the individual db's
information could be "synchronized" from the master source).
I am not advocating the use of the registry, an ASCII table, an XML
structure, or a gdb (although I have my own thoughts). I think we need
to look at the features/functions which need to be supported (something
I'm afraid has been lost in the as this thread has developed), and then
we can have the "knife" fight about implementation.
Sean