Ok, forget this, I should have made the changes before I post... I forgot the system schemas, and that there is no way of telling which one is what...
So I'm dropping the "no-schema schema" altogether. amsmota wrote: > > I think I'm dropping this, I don't have the time to come up with a good > solution. For what I know all the schema stuff is vendor specific, and > even within each vendor is version specific, so I'm wasting my time here. > > One final change for partial compatibility I'm making is this: > > if schemaObjectPrefix.includesSchema > schemaToUse = schemaObjectPrefix.includedSchema > else > if databaseMetada.getNumberOfSchemas() > 1 > throw schemaError > end > schemaToUse = databaseMetada.getNamesOfSchemas()[0] > end > > This way the code works "my" way with multiple schemas and with the "old" > "no-schema schema" providing there is only one schema in the db... > > Do you think it's acceptable? Do you still want the code? > > Cheers. > > > > > > > > > amsmota wrote: >> >> My use case changed a bit but now I'm having a tough time testing for >> back compatibility. >> >> Basically my requirement now is that I shall have the possibility of >> having 2 or more schemas holding repositories, and so the different >> tables. I'm having inconsistent results when trying to implement this >> *and* at the same time be compatible with the original "no-scheme" >> scheme. >> >> I'll keep on testing tomorrow and I'll post back the results. >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Using-diferent-database-schemas-tp16993168p17145657.html Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
