Re: OO versus RDB

From: J M Davitt <jdavitt_at_aeneas.net>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 02:14:19 GMT
Message-ID: <%3%pg.9266$vl5.8492@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>

topmind wrote:

>>>>This sort of situation is actually rather common at the enterprise
>>>>level.
>>>
>>>
>>>Changing names of columns but keeping the sematics is extremly rare,
>>>just because it breaks the interface to the applications.
>>
>>So do all changes to enterprise schemas, which is why /any/ change to
>>such a schema is a big deal.  The DBA already had to change the schema
>>to provide burdenedSalary and chose that opportunity to clean up the
>>semantics.

>
>
> Perhaps I missed the purpose of this debate, but changing the name of
> *any* interface in any paradigm or language can result in headaches. We
> use names to reference things. If 50 other applications or routines or
> classes refer to "fooSalary" and we later realize that it should have
> been called "barSalary", then we are faced with a *universal* dilema of
> whether to hunt down and change all 50 references, or leave it with a
> bad name. This is not a problem unique to databases.
>
> I generally suggest leaving it with the bad name and putting a note in
> the schema (if provided) or routine or class about the actual nature of
> the misnamed thing. If you try to hunt down all references, you may
> miss some and your boss will be pissed when things break.

This can only make sense if one fails to manage their work products and thinks that such shortcomings are a normal part of their work life.

> The only universal way around this dilema that I see is to use "dumb
> keys", names that carry no meaning such that they can't have the wrong
> meaning by design. However, it is hard to conceptual work with
> variables and interfaces with names like "A348282" and "SDFASD".

Ar you suggesting that the logical design be altered to protect against failure to manage the application code? Nonsense. Received on Sun Jul 02 2006 - 21:14:19 CDT