From: Stefan M. <ste...@un...> - 2011-02-17 10:04:48
|
On 17/02/11 09:26, Adam Retter wrote: > I really feel that this *must* go in /db/system. As a user I dont > really want my databases becoming polluted with configuration files > that are not part of my application. I really do second this. I use the collection name "etc" in several/most applications, as I usually need a place to put my App's configuration. Then, in case I deploy the application to my top-level database directory (what I rarely do, but nonetheless) I would probably face a conflict. From a user perspective this seems to be just another name to avoid. > What was the issue with using /db/system? And can it be solved? Wouldn't it be equally safe to set more restrictive permissions on the individual resources below /db/system? That means the collections - /db/system/repo - /db/system/security - /db/system/config and then additionally? - /db/system/config as far as I can see, haven't checked though, the configuration in /db/system/config is all collection-centric, so why not choose a base-layout like this: - /db/system/etc/ - /db/system/etc/collection and move the configuration from /db/system/config to the latter. Obviously we would have to be very careful to set the right and sufficiently restrictive permissions. Sure, this would *break* backwards compatibility esp. thinking about backup/restore of full databases, but maybe it pays off in the long run. Maybe I misunderstood completely what /etc should be all about, but I assumed that it would be configuration relevant to the database product (ie not specifically for a user's applications). cheers, Stefan -- | Stefan Majewski | Department of English, University of Vienna | | VOICE Corpus | Spitalgasse 2-4, Universitätscampus AAKH, Hof 8 | | | A-1090 Vienna | | Research Ass.(IT)| Phone: +43 1 4277 424 46 | |