Yes, yes, we know it's far from perfect :) Just can't yet get the
bandwidth to do that schema review...
On 5/10/2016 4:42 PM, John Sanda wrote:
> On Apr 25, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Jay Shaughnessy <jshaughn(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
> Juca, I think Lucas is correct, Alerts has the multi-tenancy model
> built in and so requires a tenantId on everything. We already have
> a standalone distribution (for use outside of Hawkular) that drives
> off of the Hawkular-Tenant header, so I guess we would just continue
> to use that mechanism in all cases. I guess that means we may drop
> the h-accounts dependency but I will discuss further with Lucas and
> we'll continue to monitor the accounts changes.
> Lucas, this may further drive the need for schema refactoring because
> if we only receive a single tenant on everything coming from MIQ, we
> will get very little data distribution.
I’ve said it in the past and it’s worth mentioning again. Even with
multiple tenants, you should be partitioning by more than just tenant.
hawkular-dev mailing list