I notice that if I have different schemaObjectPrefix for A) Repository/FileSystem -> 1 table B) Repository/Workspace/FileSystem -> 1 table C) Repository/Workspace/PersistenceManager -> 4 tables D) Repository/Versioning/FileSystem -> 1 table E) Repository/Versioning/PersistenceManager -> 4 tables
A, B, D -> *fsentry C, E -> *binval, *node, *prop, *refs I end up with 11 tables. If I use a common schemaObjectPrefix (or if I use the schemaObjectPrefix to configure my schema, see http://www.nabble.com/Using-diferent-database-schemas-td16993168.html here ) I only get 5 tables. Now what I want top know is what was the rationale behind the implementation of this (optionally) different schemaObjectPrefix's. Is just a question of housekeeping, to properly identify the different types of repository, to prevent the tables getting to big? Or is there a more "profound" reason? I need to know this to go ahead with the use of schemaObjectPrefix to define my database schema or not. Thanks all. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Use-of-diferent-or-same-schemaObjectPrefixes-tp17079492p17079492.html Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
