[Devel] roadmap to v1.1.0

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

Hi Norman,

this makes perfectly sense. I was planning to do such a re-organize of 
the tables by splitting them in two:
    1) tables which are used by openser (the DB core, which is by 
default deployed)
    2) tables used only by serweb (which will be only on demand installed).

regards,
bogdan

Norman Brandinger wrote:

> The database structure of OpenSER should be reviewed, streamlined and 
> made consistent across the tables.
>
> Today, the database appears to be a combination of OpenSER, SEMS and 
> SERWeb.
>
> For example, the column indicating the last time a row was modified 
> has three different names in the three tables below:
>
> subscriber table: datetime_modified
> grp: last_modified
> usr_preferences: modified
>
> There have recently been some database changes that appeared to move 
> in the "clean-up" direction.  For example, the "nickname" field was 
> removed from the subscriber table.  There are many other examples of 
> tables and columns that are not needed by OpenSER to operate.
>
> I realize that the requested database changes will "break" SEMS and 
> SERWeb, but in my opinion, support for these external applications 
> should not be in the "core" database.
>
> Perhaps the idea of a "core" database and a set of "mods to the core 
> database" for SEMS or SERWeb support could be used to retain 
> compatibility.
>
> From a "performance" standpoint, a clean and efficient database 
> structure is as important as good coding (imho).
>
> Regards,
> Norm
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at openser.org
> http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
>