<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Recent changes to 4: SecureLock doesn't really allow using shared database</title><link>https://sourceforge.net/p/securelock/bugs/4/</link><description>Recent changes to 4: SecureLock doesn't really allow using shared database</description><atom:link href="https://sourceforge.net/p/securelock/bugs/4/feed.rss" rel="self"/><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:20:50 -0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://sourceforge.net/p/securelock/bugs/4/feed.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>SecureLock doesn't really allow using shared database</title><link>https://sourceforge.net/p/securelock/bugs/4/</link><description>&lt;div class="markdown_content"&gt;&lt;p&gt;The software has some problems with using a database&lt;br /&gt;
which it's not allowed to create itself. It wouldn't be&lt;br /&gt;
too difficult to make it more friendly to shared&lt;br /&gt;
databases - an configurable table prefix would be of&lt;br /&gt;
some use also. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If it's not going to be changed to support shared&lt;br /&gt;
database decently, please do at least add some better&lt;br /&gt;
message to securelock_admin.php, when it detects that&lt;br /&gt;
the database does exists but gives SQL-errors when&lt;br /&gt;
trying to SELECT something from the tables. Some&lt;br /&gt;
existence check for the tables would be nice...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jyri-Petteri Paloposki</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:20:50 -0000</pubDate><guid>https://sourceforge.netfa8a373656deb442097fb5fad445ccf11b9fad61</guid></item></channel></rss>