Re: Naming convention for dependencies and contingencies?

./Rob & wrote:

> Hi Gang,
>
> Let's say you have a database that stores entries (example only) for
> construction materials.
>
> You have a table with all your materials and any dependencies.
>
> Dependency | Contingency
> -----------------------------------
> Plywood | Nails /* Plywood needs Nails to install, but
> Nails do not need Plywood */
> Roof Shingles | Felt Paper /* To install Shingles you need Felt
> Paper, but Felt Paper does not need Shingles */
> Felt Paper | Plywood
> Felt Paper | Staples
> Roof Shingles | Roof Nails
> -----------------------------------
>
> Are Dependency and Contingency good table names?
> It's the best I could think of, but the names just don't seem natural to
> me.
>
> Has anyone used a better naming convention?
>
> Thanks,

I happen to be working on something similar at the moment. I call the table itself DEPENDENCIES. Myself, I would call them ITEM_ID and ITEM_ID_SUB, but most others would use SUB_ITEM_ID. I like ITEM_ID_SUB because they line up in a report well.

-- 
Kenneth Downs
Use first initial plus last name at last name plus literal "fam.net" to
email me