Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Schema (for schemifier) should be specifiable #49

Closed
nafg opened this issue Aug 13, 2009 · 5 comments
Closed

Schema (for schemifier) should be specifiable #49

nafg opened this issue Aug 13, 2009 · 5 comments
Labels

Comments

@nafg
Copy link
Contributor

nafg commented Aug 13, 2009

Schemifier seems to decide for you what schema to schemify tables in. When the DriverType doesn't specify a default schema, the username is used. This precludes automatically creating an H2 database with a username because it doesn't have the schema. Should the default schema name for H2 be ""?

@dpp
Copy link
Member

dpp commented Aug 13, 2009

You can now specify schema names either with the DB.globalDefaultSchemaName or alternatively by vending a superconnection from your ConnectionManager (implement newSuperConnection). SuperConnection can have an optional schema name.

@nafg
Copy link
Contributor Author

nafg commented Aug 18, 2009

Why is the driver type chosen before the global default? Shouldn't it be possible to override any driver that way, not just ones that default to the username?
After all, until now if a DriverType had a schema of Empty, the convention was that it meant to use the username. I'm guessing this is because many drivers to work that way.
Not meant as criticism, just wondering how you see it.
Anyway, thanks for the fix.

@dpp
Copy link
Member

dpp commented Aug 20, 2009

Narrow to broad... that way a global setting can be overridden on an driver-by-driver bases.

@github-importer
Copy link

Imported from GitHub: http://github.com/dpp/liftweb/issues/49/find

@github-importer
Copy link

Imported from Assembla: http://www.assembla.com/spaces/liftweb/tickets/49

This issue was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants