On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 04:11:32PM +0200, Nelson Ferraz wrote: > Tim Bunce wrote: > >I don't think do. And neither is DataWarehouse. > > > >Looking at the code it seems to me this is a 'framework' of > >inter-related modules that share a common set of assumptions. > >(Which mandates one particular SQL syntax and hand-builds SQL > >without proper quoting!) > > > >As such I think it should be given a 'framework brand name' instead of > >being 'crowned' with the 'obvious' name (or an abbreviation of it). > > Thanks for the feedback. > > Two comments: > > 1) The code is alpha - expect everything to change. > > 2) I agree with your comment about "obvious" vs. "brand" name. > > So, I'm planning to remove all the framework-specific code, and > create a framework brand name as you suggested. > > I'll possibly keep DataWarehouse to describe, as generally as > possible, Facts, Dimensions, and Aggregates.
YourBrandDataWarehouse::* or DataWarehouseYourBrand::* would be fine. Tim.
