Yuval Hager wrote:
On Saturday 09 August 2008, Adrian Rossouw wrote:
On 09 Aug 2008, at 4:09 PM, Zohar Stolar wrote:
As yhager proposed, having two DBs instead of one, may ease things a lot. One DB will hold content: nodes, revisions, files, users... The second DB will hold configuration: views, cck structure, modules, variables... (this list is highly debatable).
Prefixing would work just as well for this.
I was thinking of adding properties to the table definition in schema, myself. IE: content / configuration.
I wish it was that simple. I'm afraid this is not to be solved on the database level alone. Some rows in the variable table might count for content, others for configuration. CCK, aka the-other-part-of-core, would be a impossible to dissect based on post-mortem DB analysis. The menu system can be argued about, etc.
CCK is configuration of the content, not the content itself. Probably a separation is possible in CCK's tables. Menus are content, but the position of their blocks is configuration. Views are configuration, their results are obviously content. A rule of the thumb could be: "If I change X, will it change any content?". If the answer is 'yes', then X is content. Otherwise it's configuration.