RFC: collection prefixes

[Bart Cerneels]

I agree with Ian andwould like to add that it is unlikely that there
is a need for multiple local SQL collections.

p.s. I'm taking a break from organization today to work on podcasting. :)

On 8/12/08, Ian Monroe <ian at monroe.nu> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Jeff Mitchell
>  <kde-dev at emailgoeshere.com> wrote:
>  > Much of the code in the sql collection already is designed to allow for
>  > multiple collections to exist someday.  Functions either operate on
>  > their own m_collection, or take in a SqlCollection* as a parameter.
>  >
>  > One notable area where this is not the case is the actual database.  If
>  > the idea is to support multiple SQL-based collections in the future,
>  > there isn't really a database structure to support this.  You could go
>  > about this either by tying urls/tracks/etc. to collection id numbers, or
>  > you could prefix appropriate tables with the collection
>  > name...mycollection_tracks, mycollection_artists...etc.
>  >
>  > If we are to support this, it would be better to get the database all
>  > prepped before 2.0 releases, otherwise we have to deal with
>  > modifications in later releases.  Granted this will be much easier
>  > without needing to support three database types, but still.
>  >
>  > Thoughts?
>  > --Jeff
>
>
> I'm against the idea of modifying the database only for possible
>  future use. It results in mysterious cruft in the database schema. And
>  maybe its not even the schema we would want once we start developing.
>
>
>  Ian
>
> _______________________________________________
>  Amarok-devel mailing list
>  Amarok-devel at kde.org
>  https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel
>


-- 
Bart Cerneels
Akademy 2008 lead organizer
on irc.freenode.org: Stecchino
for questions: #akademy or akademy-team at kde.org