Christian Schlatter wrote:
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
yes, that's my opinion also. instead of
openser-[core|presence|serweb|extra], the tables should be grouped
based on the module they belong to, like openser-{module_name}
Ex: openser-lcr - contain all the tables related to lcr module.
using for the file the exact name of the modules, we can have the DB
script list of the module we want to have DB support installed for.
To make both geeks and simple users happy, two way of cfg should be
available:
1) geek: list of modules -> list of files with the corresponding
table definitions
2) user: classes (as it is now) -> he selects classes which are
predefined list of modules actually.
any opinion about this approach?
I support the per-module table creation. I've come up with my own
table creation scripts that only install a small subset of the "core"
or "standard" tables. I'd be happy to use the new scripts in the future.
right....I suggested to gave both approaches implemented in order to
make happy all users (geeks and non-geeks)..Probably, for a novice, it
will too much to ask to select the modules..;)
regards,
Bogdan
Christian
regards,
bogdan
Juha Heinanen wrote:
henning,
i still don't like the idea of "core" database tables, because there is
no such thing. what tables are needed, depends on the installation.
for example, someone may use openser just to route sip requests between
providers and doesn't need any user or sip ua specific tables.
my suggestion is to group the tables according to modules.
-- juha
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
