Define_Database and our modular approach (OpenInsight Specific)
At 26 MAY 1998 09:20:25AM Jeff Word wrote:
Our software is modular and customers can purchase any of the 6 modules. We are using RDK to get the appropriate files out there. Then we use InstallShield to package it all up and install it.
Lets say they purchase all 6 modules. Who they log in as, determines which modules they are permitted into. So we need to attach only what they have permission into. The first time the software is logged into (using a user that has access to all modules), we are detaching all modules, attaching all modules, and define_datebase. This establishes the dbt file.
Now comes the real question: When each user logs in, we attach the modules they are allowed into. However the dbt reflects all modules. We have had some trouble with indexing in the runtime version and that has been a result of the dbt not matching what is actually attached. Are we going to run into more trouble because the tables we are attached to do not match the dbt exactly? Do you see problems with this approach? All suggestions welcome!
At 26 MAY 1998 10:06AM Don Bakke wrote:
Jeff,
It would seem to me that if the DBT file has more tables than what a particular user has attached then there shouldn't be any indexing problems. If the reverse were true, however, then indexing could likely be a problem.
Does your application ship with all 6 modules, but each one has its own key to unlock it, or do your customers purchase each module separately? If the former, and all modules get installed on the harddrive no matter what, why is it necessary to define the DBT file according to which modules are available? Assuming you have UI security to limit access to unavailable modules, is it that important to tinker with the DBT file as well?
At 26 MAY 1998 10:44AM Jeff Word wrote:
Thanks for you response.
The DBT would always have more or an equal number of tables.
We must alter the DBT because a customer only gets what they purchase. So we are only shipping them the appropriate tables.
At 27 MAY 1998 05:47AM [email protected] wrote:
silly q perhaps ..
but why don't you keep a minimal dbt .. and attach tables dynamically,
in the login process ??
/bengt