Re: object naming conventions

Martin Doering wrote:

> Hi, all!
>
> Till now we let tables for different applications start with a
> specific two character shortcut. So we do not run into the above
> problem. But some applications are not written by ourselfes. This day
> 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...
>
> ...but here a question about a naming convention for objects in
> general comes up.
>
> Does it make sense to let tables, sequences, ... start with an object
> type specific shortcut, like T_*, S_*? Is this better, if you read
> statements to see, what really happens here, or is it not really
> helpful for anything? For my tools (Toad, EnterpriseManager,
> Oracletool) it does not make sense, because they all know/get the
> object types from the data dictionary.
>
> How do you do handle this?
> --
> Regards, Martin Doering

I find naming conventions meaningless for tables other than to separate them from views and materialized views. Where I get concerned is with constraint names as it is near meaningless to report a constraint violation of SYS_00.....

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/extinfo/certprog/oad/oad_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)