Anonymous

My feedback

  1. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      You have left! (?) (thinking…)
      Anonymous shared this idea  · 
    • 6 votes
      Vote
      Sign in
      Check!
      (thinking…)
      Reset
      or sign in with
      • facebook
      • google
        Password icon
        I agree to the terms of service
        Signed in as (Sign out)
        You have left! (?) (thinking…)
        Anonymous commented  · 

        Adding native server level object support to RR would really round out the product. Including server level objects in existing db projects functionally works but introduces several challenges. These challenges, in most scenarios, can be accounted for but doing so deviates from other standard best practices with RR projects.

        One way to minimize the impacts is to have an "empty database" project that just contains the server level objects. The challenge with this is that RR expects there to be a database associated to the project. This requires that a "fake" database actually exist.

        Ideally, you could have an RR "Server" Project which would provide clear separation and intent of Database & Server Projects with each project type gracefully handling the nuances of their corresponding type.

        Anonymous supported this idea  · 

      Feedback and Knowledge Base