I guess the Nays have it. So that is what I will do. -Jonathan
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Ian Holsman<[email protected]> wrote: > if you don't change it from table, what about putting a huge comment in the > config file with the FAQ entry in it. > > On 21/06/2009, at 9:32 AM, Sandeep Tata wrote: > >> 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 >>> >>> > > -- > Ian Holsman > [email protected] > > > >
