How far is inter-module dependency preferred ? or is it a big no no ?

[adewri]

Originally posted by abhaysk
This is what i intended to say,
had u all tables in one schema & allowed devlopers to create structures, and they as devlopers least bothered about TS, Storage and so will only mess up the things.

It all depends how well u can teach ur developers. At my place i take regular sessions and have to a great extent explained what a database is and other than small problems they are able to do things the right way.

Have installed a seperate database where they can test their curiosity. A development database where they can test their applications and a seperate database on which my team has control. So no problems from the development team.

[DaPi]

Hi Amar,

I would take a step backwards and take a "bigger" view. Do you want to have one application or two?
- One - no prob.
- Two - then you have an interface, the need to roll back/forward the applications independantly etc etc.

In the current situation, I would say you have one application . . .

[adewri]

Hi Dapi

We have eight application modules. MNT, BOK, POR, PNP, FIN, INY, ACM and PCH (im not sure if i should mention them or not).

As of now these applications are independent of each other at the database level but they certainly do interact with each other at application level ie we are using public synonyms to interact with each other. We refer to them as internal applications

Then there are external applications like CRM, Oracle Apps and many others to which we are interacting via interfaces (we refer to them as external interfaces).

As of now we have decided to keep the schemas independent such that they may need to be ported seperately in future. As these schemas (im refering to application modules as well when i say schema.) interact with seperate external applications depending upon their requirements, so its very much possible that depending on requirement we may club the external applications and the internal applications in near future and have seperate boxes or locations for them. Then we will have to operate via dblinks or streams or advanced queuing to make them interact with each other. We are still planning in these terms as how far can we be preventive .

I wont bore u further, so in short this is what we have.

[DaPi]

. . . so I would call this parent-child relationship an "Internal Interface". I think discussing it in those terms might help crystalise your collective thoughts. The choice of words can be important! Good luck!

[adewri]

He he , i think im confusing.

Ok let me try to explain. Of course there are Parent Child relation ship. But we are restricting them within the schema, no parent child relation ship across the schema. One application module refers to one schema. Total of eight schemas.

Now if a application has to interact with other schema then they will be interating via application using public synonyms and grants, no interdependency (ie no parent child dependency) at the database level.

I hope im clear that way. Any way we have decided to keep them seperate.

[abhaysk]

Originally posted by adewri
He he , i think im confusing.

You really did.
BTW, i dont see any harm in having relationship across schema.\

Abhay.