I understand the value of running a "private" instance in the scenario of multiple developers working on the same machine. But really, how common is this?
Meanwhile, in the common case, where I am a developer on my machine and I'm the only one using it (that's how we all work, right?), I am now having to run PostgreSQL on a non-default port. And there is this perfect good pre-existing PostgreSQL SMF service on the default port that I am not allowed to touch. On a Mac or PC (even on Linux), I can download PostgreSQL or MySQL, install it, and start running it on the default port. Nobody seems to complain about this. I think Ludo's solution of providing a script to quickly grant the necessary rights makes a lot of sense. I would suggest that if we get a lot of complaints about collisions between multiple developers trying to use the same instance, then we can consider the more heavyweight solution of providing a user-generic SMF service. Thanks, David On Jan 11, 2008 11:15 AM, James Gates <james.gates at sun.com> wrote: > I interpreted Ludo's explanation to mean every user that has been > assigned the RBAC authority with their script can control the *global* > instance of MySQL/Apache (which the webstack team have defined & > provided the necessary xml manifest). > > > > Josh Berkus wrote: > > > >> Jignesh suggested having multiple SMF services (one for each user, > >> each with their own PostgreSQL instance, managing their own > >> databases). This is preferable, and worth pursuing. But I'm not sure > >> how you can do this with SMF. As far as I'm aware the SMF service > >> instances have to be predetermined. > > > > > > Hmmm, then how does it work for MySQL? Surely we're not allowing every > > user on the system to control the *global* instance of MySQL/Apache? > > > > --Josh > -- David W. Van Couvering http://davidvancouvering.blogspot.com
