multitenant support

[anttip]

I saw that you were considering implementing multitenant support to play-morphia. I would really like to see this happen, so here's one take on implementing multitenant support to play-morphia.

This implementation allows modifying the collection name for each tenant. I couldn't find clear documentation on how to modify Morphia's collection names dynamically, but overriding DatastoreImpl.getCollection seemed to work against the current test suite and also in my own testing.

[ahmetb]

pardon me but is this a support for managing multiple databases (rather than different collections in a db) in one single morphia session? I'm not clear with that.

[anttip]

This implementation is for managing collection names. By implementing the TenantContext interface you can modify the collection names to include a tenant-specific identifier, see the interface: https://github.com/anttip/play-morphia/blob/f01ac360e06f23d2d5455c1a3c103aa98b47dc79/src/play/modules/morphia/TenantContext.java and an example implementation https://github.com/anttip/play-morphia/blob/f01ac360e06f23d2d5455c1a3c103aa98b47dc79/src/play/modules/morphia/ThreadLocalTenantContext.java

[greenlaw110]

Hi, sorry for the late response. Just come back from holiday.

So it looks like it's not what I am thinking of. I prefer to provide a way that programmer could specify a different db rather than a different collection where the model could be mapped into. Anyway let me check your code and see how it goes.

[greenlaw110]

Using threadlocal variable in this way is not safe in play environment. Because a thread might very possible be to handle another incoming request where the context is totally different.

[anttip]

Could you explain how it is not safe? This is meant to be used from Play's lifecycle methods (@before, @Final). I followed this discussion and assumed it would be ok : http://groups.google.com/group/play-framework/browse_thread/thread/5a568d6aa7cb8c9b

[anttip]

Hi,

the reason I went with using collections/customer instead of
databases/customer was how mongodb saves it data files. Mongodb
preallocates the files so you will end up having quite a bit of unused
diskspace allocated but unused. Here's a more detailed explanation:
http://blog.boxedice.com/2010/02/28/notes-from-a-production-mongodb-deployment/#comment-818

But I think these approaches are not mutually exclusive. For example Grails
has a mongodb-multitenant plugin that does both schemes. It puts 500
customers in a single database with renaming collections and if you have
more it will allocate a new db for every set of 500 customers.
http://grails.org/plugin/mongodb-multitenant

2012/1/10 Green Luo <
[email protected]

Hi, sorry for the late response. Just come back from holiday.

So it looks like it's not what I am thinking of. I prefer to provide a way
that programmer could specify a different db rather than a different
collection where the model could be mapped into. Anyway let me check your
code and see how it goes.

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#57 (comment)

[greenlaw110]

That's an interesting point. Probably providing multi-tenant solution cater
for both db and collection, and let user to choose their option is a good
idea

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 6:38 PM, anttip <
[email protected]

wrote:

Hi,

the reason I went with using collections/customer instead of
databases/customer was how mongodb saves it data files. Mongodb
preallocates the files so you will end up having quite a bit of unused
diskspace allocated but unused. Here's a more detailed explanation:

http://blog.boxedice.com/2010/02/28/notes-from-a-production-mongodb-deployment/#comment-818

But I think these approaches are not mutually exclusive. For example Grails
has a mongodb-multitenant plugin that does both schemes. It puts 500
customers in a single database with renaming collections and if you have
more it will allocate a new db for every set of 500 customers.
http://grails.org/plugin/mongodb-multitenant

2012/1/10 Green Luo <
[email protected]

Hi, sorry for the late response. Just come back from holiday.

So it looks like it's not what I am thinking of. I prefer to provide a
way
that programmer could specify a different db rather than a different
collection where the model could be mapped into. Anyway let me check
your
code and see how it goes.

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#57 (comment)

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#57 (comment)