Database design of source control applications - tsql

So I may be in the process of creating an in house source control web application. I'm unsure as to how I should approach the database design. Should the code files be stored in the file system and reference those files in the database? Or should I store the files in the database itself?
Edit: the reason I "may" be on this project is because we may not be able to get an already established source control application on our closed network.

Related

What's the proper file format for local data to implement a sync feature with a SQL database server?

This question might be quite dumb, but I couldn't find anything related.
Let's say a user can create and modify a shopping list in an application, that data would be synchronized to the SQL server whenever network is available and vice-versa.
What file format should the local data stored in? Using a local SQL database server won't make much sense for a mobile platform.
Should I store everything into a JSON file locally, or there is a better approach?

How to move alfresco community addtion from One Ubuntu machine to another ubuntu machine without lose of data?

I am new to alfresco and I am using alfresco community addition 5.0 for document management system.Upto now I don't have any problem.
now my doubt is how to move alfresco community from one system to another system without lose of data.
I would suggest you to look at the Backing up and restoring part of the Alfresco documentation.
To make it simple, you have data stored as three parts :
The database which can be backed up and dumped in an other postgresql of your choice
The contentstore which contains the files data of your system can be copied and pasted in your new system (of course with appropriated permissions).
The index which contains your indexed content to make powefull search. The transfert of this one is optional since it can be regenerated from the database and contentstore
Of course, you should do your backup and transfert with your alfresco stopped, since database, contentstore and index are related.

Local, file-based database for an Electron application

We are working on an application that will be offered both as a web-based and as a cross-platform desktop solution by means of Electron.
Due to customer requirements, the desktop client cannot make use of "the cloud" to store data; all data should be stored in the local machine or, even better, the user should have the option to keep the database/data file on an external HDD so that another user on the same local network can use the same data file.
We've been looking at NeDB, PouchDB, etc, but all these use either Web SQL or IndexedDB on the browser itself to store the data.
NeDB can theoretically use the file system but that seems only possible for Node Webkit apps.
Another option is of course MongoDB, but it requires setting up a site on a web server. Seeing as how our users will set that up in on their own machines, that will work for one user only but would make it very hard for them to share the data (note: assume users with little technical know-how).
Is there a way to force NeDB to persist data in a file instead of the in-browser database?
Alternatively, does any one know of a file-based, compact database that plays well with electron/node?
We'd preferably like to use a NoSQL database, but options of file-based SQL databases will be considered as well.
I have some experience with NeDB in an Electron app and I can say it will definitely work on the filesystem.
How are you initializing NeDB (or whatever your database choice is)? Also, are you initializing it in the main or renderer process? If you can share that, I think we could trace the issue to a configuration issue.
This is how you start NeDB with a persistent data-store that saves to disk.
var Datastore = require('nedb')
, db = new Datastore({ filename: 'path/to/datafile', autoload: true });
I think MongoDB is going to be overkill for an Electron app (it's meant to be really a high performance, distributed database running in the cloud).
Another option you could consider is LevelDB (a key/value store that can persist to the filesystem) which is popular in the node community. (EDIT 4/17/17 IndexedDB uses LevelDB underneath the hood, so if you go that route, may as well just use that)
One aspect I would definitely evaluate carefully is: How difficult is this database going to be to package and distribute? How do I integrate it into my build system? Level and NeDB can be included simply via npm install and any native code compiling is handled seamlessly with node-gyp, which is as simple as it gets. However, bundling Mongo, for example, will require some work to get a working build for each different platform.

Run multiple sites on the same GWT application

Can someone please point me to the right direction.
I need to be able to host my GWT application in a way that it allows multiple clients to use the same application which could be separated by url's but internally using the same application.
the different sites would probably be seperated by different configurations. eg. different database, different log path etc, etc,
any ideas.?
You could use the following way to arrange your projects :
- my.application.core.project : it holds all the business logic and views for the application except for the entry point
-my.application.customerX.project : it holds only the entry point and the property files used for having the connection to the db, probably customerX specific theme
-my.application.customerY.project : it holds only the entry point and the property files used for having the connection to the db, probably customerY specific theme
Such an organization of the projects would allow you to have a common core that is distributed to each of the customers and also the ability to build on top of the core customer-specific impelementations.
The url's per client can be done with URL rewriting. Be it with an apache server in front of your application and/or in combination with a Filter in your web application.
As for the configuration, logging, and/or database per client you want a solution that doesn't store a file per client on the file system next to your application. Preferable you store client specific settings in one database and have an admin interface to manage it. For the client's data you also don't want a separate database per client, because it doesn't scale well, and would be a maintenance mess if you need to upgrade your application and databases to a newer version. Look for a multitenant architecture.
I admit this is a vague answer, but without specific system and software descriptions it's kind of hard to give a concrete answer. Nevertheless I hope this answer does give you some direction.
I have successfully achieved this by setting up separate directories in tomcat for different clients and then creating soft-links to the main application within that folder. when it comes to database connection properties and other configuration properties, instead of pointing them to the main application I just created them separately.

Sitefinity development environment and source code control

There are some queries for which we need resolution before we purchase sitefinity 5.0 license. I would really appreciate if could get answers to these
What are the recommended guidelines to setup the sitefinity project in the source control? If there 4 to 5 developers working on the project, what should be the starting point in setting up the initial codebase? Do every developer has to create the sitefinity website and DB on their dev-boxes?
Is it recommend to setup a common DB for the sitefinity website where all the dev-machine would be connecting to do the development, if not what is the alternative approach?
Is there any online documentation available related to build and release of sitefinity web applications, other than publishing from within the visual studio?
Thanks
Gaurav
We've been developing with Sitefinity since version 2, with multiple developers.
To answer your questions specifically:
Have a single developer (ideally your lead dev) create a clean sitefinity visual studio solution on their local machine. Check it into your source control repository and have each additional developer pull down a copy from there. You're now all in sync.
In terms of database location, two approaches work - either have each person run a local database, and in the web.config setup the connection string location as . (i.e. local). That way no one needs to check out the web.config to run it. Otherwise use a common development/testing server for the database. We've found the easiest way is to each have a local DB, unless multiple devs are working on very specific tasks together at the same time.
I have not seen any online documentation related to building outside of visual studio. If you have TFS or a MS build server, it should work fine as well.
In general, there is nothing 'special' about Sitefinity's architecture that separates it from any other .NET / MSSQL solution. Best practice that falls under these technologies still applies.
My experience with source control has been one of two options. If you are using SQLExpress user instance databases (that is an mdf in the App_Data folder) I've found versioning everything except this database file and the dataconfig.config file in the configurations folder will allow every developer to run their own copy of the website.
from there you can either do some kind of manual merge of the database or just create a new one for deployment.
This option works best if your developers are simply working on features, and don't need to be working on an actual website, modifying content that has to keep in sync.
Alternatively, if they do need to work with live content and it all has to be the same, create the database in a shared server they all have access to, and version everything (since the connection string should be the same for both).
This works best if your developers are doing work to support existing content as opposed to say creating modules that manipulate the database (creating tables, columns, etc), because keep in mind with this method, everyone will be accessing and modifying the same database.
Personally, my preference is option 1, because it allows each developer full control over their environment. the source could then be merged and shadowed to a staging server, so that the main site content is only affected by this one instance.
I hope this is helpful!