Closed lrs closed 6 years ago
Just seen a previous pull request (#82) was rejected. I'll leave this open as I think it's still worth discussing.
@lrs why do you have a need for using a table prefix? #82 seems to have a lot of good reasons for not supporting it, but I'm curious as to what you see the need being
@LukeTowers I honestly can't say it's a need rather an option, seeing it in the database config file led me to believe it's supported.
The classic reason would be being able to have multiple instances in a single database. I agree that I would seriously consider other hosting options if that were the only choice.
Adding a table prefix would also "obfuscate" them a bit which may help with security, however that may be a stretch.
Anyway, I've just noticed that the rainlab builder plugin won't recognize migrated tables that get the table prefix added. I can imagine the knock-on effect this could have with other plugins.
@lrs yeah, it's technically supported by Laravel but the overhead of supporting it fully in October isn't really worth it for the value that it brings. It would really just encourage people to stick with crappy hosts which would end up causing other problems for us. And "obfuscating" it is just security through obscurity and doesn't even work in WordPress which is where that practice started let alone in October / Laravel where developers don't even use the table names directly, everything's through the models. I appreciate the effort but I think we're going to stick with the prior decision of not supporting it in the installer unless you have anything else you can think of on the matter.
Feel free to take a stab at any of the open issues on the main repo if you're looking for something to do to help out on the project though! :)
Cheers @LukeTowers will do!
The ability to set a table prefix for the initial tables seems to be missing from the installer. This is useful to allow different October CMS installations to use a single database instance.