Re: object naming conventions

Martin Doering <doeringm_at_gmx.de> wrote in message news:<o4i2gvk757b7dgtco1atimsq0jqr14rj6h_at_4ax.com>...

> Till now we let tables for different applications start with a
> specific two character shortcut.

Why?

> is the one I waited for: The first time we now have to schemas which
> need a public synonym of the same name. Ok, I will find a way...

Do *not* use public synonyms. Create private ones as needed.

> Does it make sense to let tables, sequences, ... start with an object
> type specific shortcut, like T_*, S_*?

No.

> Is this better, if you read
> statements to see, what really happens here, or is it not really
> helpful for anything?

It's *never* been helpful for anything. I never understood this "naming standard" thing. It reeks of the earlier DBMS systems where this sort of stuff was needed. With modern RDBMS systems, this hasn't been needed since the early 80s. Yet some people insist on "site naming standards" as if they are the only reason for their existence. Which is probably right...

>
> How do you do handle this?

I don't.

Cheers
Nuno Souto
wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam Received on Tue Jul 01 2003 - 16:34:38 CDT