All good points Michael. Replacing is neither short term nor easy as many places in the code base depend on this feature, not to mention the need for community approval too. I just mentioned this as an alternative solution from a technical standpoint.
So our best bet is to fix the issue mentioned by Jacques. On Mar 3, 2017 9:16 PM, "Michael Brohl" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Taher, > > I don't think that this is a valid short-term approach. > > As far as I know, there are users and also service providers relying on > the multi-tenant feature and we should have a mid- to long-term roadmap for > a migration to other solutions. > > It would be really helpful to have some opinions by users of the > multi-tenancy feature. > > Best regards, > > Michael > > > Am 03.03.17 um 13:22 schrieb Taher Alkhateeb: > >> In my opinion, the multi-tenancy feature can be reasonably replaced with >> non-java databases like mysql and postgres combined with docker. Both >> instances share the same code base but with two different runtime volumes >> and two databases. This would actually reduce the complexity of the code >> base, especially the entity engine. >> >> On Mar 3, 2017 10:39 AM, "Jacques Le Roux" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >>> >>> After my analysis at https://s.apache.org/hvR9 if we don't fix the >>> issues >>> reported there I wonder if we don't need to remove the multitenant >>> feature, >>> better not to propose a broken solution! >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> >>> > >
