Re: Help with hosting multiple versions of the same schema (1 per client)

From: Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:36:09 +1100
Message-ID: <41c761eb$0$1121$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

Joel Garry wrote:

>>... and I realise that your point (3) is a bit of a show-stopper,
>>but... point (4) must, surely, be a complete red herring since
>>your original question asked how to 'create a schema' for each
>>client who comes online. In other words, even if you did it in
>>exactly the way you asked about, your hate-each-other-to-death
>>customers are going to be sharing the database... so it seems to
>>me, they'd better get used to the idea!

>
>
> I doubt that is a red herring, and he did ask for a solution that
> covers a range of possible configurations. It is not a red herring
> because it is not purely a technical question, it is a marketing
> question that must be dealt with when providing services to
> competitors, especially with all the media coverage given to "hackers."

Red Herring: n. Something that draws attention away from the central issue.

If it had been a technical question, there would have been a technical answer (and I would have called it right or wrong). Precisely because it is a question of nuance, presentation, appearances and marketing is the reason I called it a red herring.

The central issue here is that ALL proposed solutions (that I've read in this thread, anyway -I may have missed a few) involve customers' data co-residing in the one database. Eschewing FGAC partly because it raises a presentational issue of customers's data co-residing in the one *table* is to miss that central, shared database, issue. In other words, is it "better", from the marketing perspective, to say "You are sharing the database with competitor X" or "You are sharing the table with competitor X"? Strikes me that in both cases, you will either be able to reassure the customers, or not.

But to imagine that there are no presentational/marketing issues when separate schemas are involved (and hence that FGAC is uniquely difficult to market) is weak, I think.

> I'm sure Oracle and Sun must deal with this issue with their hosted
> solutions, perhaps the OP should ask their salespeople as if he were
> going to buy.

That is a very good suggestion.

> I'd say, turn the lemon into lemonade by quoting a range of prices
> based on how paranoid the customers are. If they want one instance per
> schema, fine! Sell more boxes. Of course, I'm no marketing guru.

That is equally a good suggestion, and is the only one I've read that *truly* resolves the 'sharing the database' issue. IE, don't!

Regards
HJR Received on Mon Dec 20 2004 - 17:36:09 CST