We've set up the excellent Postgres port and it works very well. As I've begun to dig around in CW I've noticed that there's a lot of Stanford network systems deeply embedded in the application. Formats for userids, courseids, etc. are designed into the table field definitions and probably error-checked in the servlets. How are people dealing with this as they bring up test systems? Is there discussion of making this SourceForge version into a more abstracted system that can be easily modified?
Thanks,
Bill Jones
Augsburg College
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Yes,
there is a lot od stanford specific stuf in the center. In the past we have addressed it by cusomising the validation, and reusing the filelds where appropriate. The danger with taking this too far is what happens on the the release of version 3. Do we report from oracle to postgress, or do we upgrade from postgres 2.5 to 3.0. At 2.5 we reported.
Ian
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Does anyone have anonymous CVS access to Stanford's repository to implement bug fixes as they come instead of having to deal with re-porting/upgrading?
Also, I think upgrading (applying the recursive diffs from Stanford 2.5 to 3.0) is a better solution than reporting.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hello,
We've set up the excellent Postgres port and it works very well. As I've begun to dig around in CW I've noticed that there's a lot of Stanford network systems deeply embedded in the application. Formats for userids, courseids, etc. are designed into the table field definitions and probably error-checked in the servlets. How are people dealing with this as they bring up test systems? Is there discussion of making this SourceForge version into a more abstracted system that can be easily modified?
Thanks,
Bill Jones
Augsburg College
Yes,
there is a lot od stanford specific stuf in the center. In the past we have addressed it by cusomising the validation, and reusing the filelds where appropriate. The danger with taking this too far is what happens on the the release of version 3. Do we report from oracle to postgress, or do we upgrade from postgres 2.5 to 3.0. At 2.5 we reported.
Ian
Does anyone have anonymous CVS access to Stanford's repository to implement bug fixes as they come instead of having to deal with re-porting/upgrading?
Also, I think upgrading (applying the recursive diffs from Stanford 2.5 to 3.0) is a better solution than reporting.