hasta_l3_at_hotmail.com wrote:
> DA Morgan wrote :
>> hasta_l3_at_hotmail.com wrote:
>>> DA Morgan wrote :
>>>
>>>> hasta_l3_at_hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> However, one could very naturally be led to give the same name
>>>>> to a table and to a package - ie an "employee" table and the
>>>>> corresponding "employee" package.
>>>> CREATE TABLE employee ....
>>>> A name should have meaning.
>>> The point was that the names of the problem domain
>>> are necessary but not sufficient to drive the naming of
>>> oracle objects.
>>>
>> SQL> desc user_source
>> Name Null? Type
>> ----------------------------------------- -------- --------------
>> NAME VARCHAR2(30)
>> TYPE VARCHAR2(12)
>> LINE NUMBER
>> TEXT VARCHAR2(4000)
>>
>> SQL>
>>
>> You have up to 30 characters ... use some imagination. ;-)
>
> Daniel Daniel Daniel..... :-)
>
> In this thread, a claim was sort of made that if one used names
> from the problem space, then no name conflict would happen in
> the Oracle representation.
>
> I exhibited a counter-example disproving the claim, that's all.
>
> This doesn't imply any judgement from me on whether the
> current situation is a problem, or on how hard it is to further
> discriminate, or whatever...
>
Sorry. Responded to the wrong person.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
www.psoug.org
Received on Sun Nov 05 2006 - 12:29:41 CST
