Hi Paul ,
Thanks for attention and considering the proposal of having feature for
database name specification for tenantCreation.
Yes I use XML-RPC thoroughly as i mostly use OFBiz as a framework
for generic data models rather than the OOTB. In such a development model
I feel joining tables and getting data from DB is much more efficient than
implementing DB like activities in application code. (ie. utilising xml-rpc)
Sparingly i require to access the ofbiz entities directly and that is where
having ofbiz entities in a schema of existing database comes handy.
Its true that scaling requirements of the two applications can be different
and tying them into same DB may lead to redundant allocations.
But i still feel having flexibility shall be a boon as we never know how
creative people get with their setups!. OFBiz is already a very flexible
architecture for that matter.
I guess the default behavior of the command can be left like that and
for those who need more flexibility there can be fine grained options
for overriding the default values.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 7:59 AM, Paul Foxworthy <p...@cohsoft.com.au> wrote:
> On 13 March 2018 at 13:12, Rajesh Mallah <mallah.raj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was not suggesting to use schemas in general for for accommodating
> > tenants.
> > Each tenant can reside in its own dedicated DB.
> > When we use OFBiz as a part of some application that has other relational
> > data as well, then schema partitioning comes handy.
> > Eg, The OFBiz data lies in its own schema say 'ofbiz' and the other
> > application data lies in another schema say 'general' or 'app' etc. it
> > makes utilizing
> > ofbiz.* and general.* tables easier. It allows close integration of
> > applications with
> > OFBiz.
> > As far as other DBs are concerned that do not have same notion of schema,
> > the feature can be done on an optional basis (ie controlled by the args)
> > i guess the current form of entityengine.xml is already doing it i.e,
> > handling diverse DBs and supporting (Pg) schema at the same time.
> > Also the DBname specification is currently embedded in the jdbc_uri , if
> > can have an option for specifying / overriding the 2 kinds of DBs
> > (org.apache.ofbiz
> > and org.apache.ofbiz.olap) while creating a tenant it shall allow to use
> > existing DBs.
> > This shall be very handy for migrations / consolidation of DBs in
> > enterprise environments.
> Hi Rajesh,
> OK, thanks.
> I agree it would be useful to have the database name as a separate logical
> thing rather than embedded in the URI.
> Integrating two applications and two schemas within one database might be
> the best. But managing permissions gets tricky - each application would
> have its own security management, and yet requires some access to the other
> application's data, even if read-only. It would be difficult to scale one
> application independently of the other using a cluster or some other
> technique. Have you considered using XML-RPC services instead?
> Paul Foxworthy
> Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd
> PO Box 2773
> Cheltenham Vic 3192
> Phone: +61 3 9585 6788
> Web: http://www.coherentsoftware.com.au/
> Email: i...@coherentsoftware.com.au