Of course, separating the schema from the prefix does that also... Nevertheless I attached my "ugly" solution to the Jira, as is working perfectly for my use cases now and maybe can be useful.
Cheers. amsmota wrote: > > Ok, now I'm finishing it. Actually I did implement the "no-schema schema" > backward compatibility *iif* there is only one "user" schema in the > database (presumably the "default" schema). > > Regarding the question of "ugliness" discussed above, actually this "hack" > as one big advantage, this way I can have the "workspace" tables and the > "version" tables and the "filessystem" tables in different schemas using > the schemaObjectPrefix, which can be handy for maintenance and > house-keeping, by specifing only "schema." and no "prefix" at all: > > Repository/FileSystem/param[name="schemaObjectPrefix" value="FileSystem."] > > Repository/Workspace/FileSystem/param[name="schemaObjectPrefix" > value="Repository."] > Repository/Workspace/PersistenceManager/param[name="schemaObjectPrefix" > value="Repository."] > > Repository/Versioning/FileSystem/param[name="schemaObjectPrefix" > value="Versions."] > Repository/Versioning/PersistenceManager/param[name="schemaObjectPrefix" > value="Versions."] > > So it's not so "ugly" after all... :-) > > I didn't test it thoroughly , but I'll post the code in the Jira asap if > you guys think it's usefull. > > Cheers. > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Using-diferent-database-schemas-tp16993168p17208553.html Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
