I'd like for us to continue with "Table" as well. I agree with Alexander's argument for what "namespaces" mean for most CS domains.
Moving up a notch to a "database" is also confusing (Do we also have tables? Are there tablespaces? Different storage engines for each tablespace?) We'll have to think of new names for columns and supercolumns too --- I'd rather we stayed with "Table" On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Chris Goffinet<[email protected]> wrote: > I think we should keep it as 'table'. It's understood everywhere. I've > always even heard BigTable call it a Table? I think namespace might just be > more confusing. > > On Jun 20, 2009, at 6:54 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > >> Since we're proposing things that break stuff this weekend... :) >> >> I think we should rename table to namespace in the config file. >> Calling it "table" confuses people coming from an rdbms background >> (i.e. just about everyone). >> >> -Jonathan > >
