ad 1., yes it's a multiuser web app ad 2., it's just a subset, not all tables of the schema have archive tables ad 3., archive tables have a postfix _A in the tablename and are in the same schema, but it would be not problem to transfer them to another scheme
The idea with the two runtimes sounds interesting Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org> schrieb am Fri Dec 19 2014 at 09:45:08: > A few more things I need to ask: > > * I assume it is a multi-user app? > * If a user checks the checkbox, you switch *all* entities to the archive > tables, not just a subset of entities? > * How do you distinguish between regular and archive tables? Are archives > in a separate schema, or in the same schema, but using different naming > conventions? > > But here is also an idea of the solution, that can be further tweaked > depending on the answers. You need to start 2 ServerRuntime's (I assume you > are on Cayenne 3.1 / 4.0 here). One mapped to access regular tables, and > another - the archive tables. And depending on a given user state, you > allocate them an ObjectContext from the corresponding runtime. > > Andrus > > > > On Dec 19, 2014, at 11:24 AM, Markus Reich <markus.re...@markusreich.at> > wrote: > > > > Hi Andrus, > > > > the switch is durring runtime, so it's not defined at start up. The > trigger > > is e.g. a checkbox in the ui where the user can decide if he want to read > > from archive. One idea was to create a view over archive and real table, > > because it's only read only necessary. > > > > > > Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org> schrieb am Fri Dec 19 2014 at > > 08:22:26: > > > >> I guess the answer depends on what "easily" means. So a few questions to > >> clarify the scenario: > >> > >> When you start an app, do you already know whether it will read from > >> regular or archive tables? If not, what event triggers the switch in the > >> running app? Is this for all sessions or just specific users? > >> > >> Andrus > >> > >>> On Dec 19, 2014, at 10:08 AM, Markus Reich < > markus.re...@markusreich.at> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I need some hints for a very special issue :-) > >>> We have archived old entries of our tables to shadow tables, which have > >>> exactly the same columns structure as the source table. > >>> > >>> No we need to have a possibility to switch easily between real and > >>> shadowtable. > >>> Maybe someone already is/was facing such a constellation? > >>> > >>> thx > >>> Meex > >> > >> > >
