Not that I'm expert at this, but I've always been slightly worried about storing all of my binary data in the way I do (via ERAttachment) and sometimes sketch out a better abstraction for it along the lines of your separate server implementation....
Mark -- Dr. Mark Wardle Specialist registrar, Neurology (Sent from my mobile) On 19 Mar 2011, at 19:02, Mark Wardle <[email protected]> wrote: > Forgive me if I've misinterpreted your need, but if you won't be > having cross database relationships to your attachments, wouldn't this > best be modelled as what it is: an abstract attachment service perhaps > via a web service type interface? Used by lots of applications, you > abstract out the implementation (ERAttachment) and in the future can > implement it using something else.... > > Mark > > -- > Dr. Mark Wardle > Specialist registrar, Neurology > (Sent from my mobile) > > > On 19 Mar 2011, at 11:32, David Avendasora <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> We are currently using ERAttachment in one of our projects. The particular >> app it is being used in has it's own DB which resides on a physically >> separate server from most of the rest of our Schemas. This app works great, >> and handles literally thousands of attachments per day (hence the reason for >> it's own physical server and database). >> >> Now I want to use ERAttachment for another purpose. I want to put it in a >> framework that could be used by many, if not all, of our applications, >> including the system that currently uses ERAttachment. I can't use the >> existing ERAttachment tables in this other, physically-seperate database >> because EOF can't do the cross-database fetches it needs to. >> >> Theoretically, I could have the DBAs setup a cross-database link between the >> two databases so EOF could get to the other Schema, but it wouldn't really >> make sense from an organizational perspective to have just the attachments >> on a different server, that is for a completely different business purpose, >> from all the rest of the new framework's tables. >> >> The problem is that ERAttachment seems to only allow you to configure one >> connection dictionary for it. It doesn't appear that you can make use of the >> "configurationName" functionality to have different sets of ERAttachment >> tables. >> >> Am I missing how that can be implemented, or is it something that I >> shouldn't even be attempting? It seems quite limiting to only allow one set >> of ERAttachment tables per application. >> >> Dave _______________________________________________ >> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. >> Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) >> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: >> http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/mark%40wardle.org >> >> This email sent to [email protected] _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [email protected]
