Re: object naming conventions

Brian Peasland <oracle_dba_at_remove_spam.peasland.com> wrote in message news:<3F02D840.60AC4BF0_at_remove_spam.peasland.com>...

>
> Personally, I don't like to add any descriptor to tables or views. Why
> does the end user or application care if it is a table or a view, or a
> snynonym? It shouldn't. That's why we have this "transparency" thing.
>

Well, the end user shouldn't care in any way, shape or format. <rant>
The days where end users did ad-hoc queries are I'm afraid gone. 2-tier c/s is essentially gone. Now we're back to the bad old days of the IT department making all the choices. End users don't get to see table. They just use the intranet and go to ebay for lunch. It's called "efficiency".
</rant>

Still, separating a table name from a view name via suffix is useful in large development situations. For example: you have a development environment with multiple versions of one application. You have to separate some table designs into a common schema that everyone else accesses. You want to access only subsets of the common info. You put a view on the common table for each application that needs individual stuff off the main schema. You name the view the same as the common table, but you put a _VW suffix in it so you can easily come back to the code and change it to a null string once you're ready to put out a new complete version of the whole lot. And so on.

Cheers
Nuno Souto
wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam Received on Wed Jul 02 2003 - 16:24:39 CDT