documenting all of your work or changing things like this for all of your
work, dontcha just kinda get the feeling someone else may be coming along,
and might just get ur job?
or am I just paranoid?
tw
-----Original Message-----
From: Marlon Moyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 12:32 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: database naming conventions
I guess I just see it as a wasted effort. Why would you need to know
if it's a table vs a view. Afterall, they're supposed to behave the
same way. The views should be transparent to the end user.
Say you have a situation where a table tbl_employees
has....welll...employee info in it. HR has access to the whole table.
Payroll has access to only certain fields in the table. You create
vw_employees now and update your code. Supervisors decide they need
info out of the table, but they're limited to even less data
available. You create vw_employees_supervisor_view and update your
code.
Now, if you didn't have the prefixes, you could just create a view
called employees in the dbo schema for HR, one in the accounting
schema, and one in the supervisor schema. That way, all of your code
references employees and you know that each group only gets to see
their information.
Marlon
my $.02 (which isn't worth that much)
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:06:03 -0700, Charlie Griefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> IMO it's not about anything being 'given away'...it's about
> self-documentation (Mike D. already made that point tho).
>
> Some people prefix arrays with arr_ or ar_, structures with st_, etc.
well,
> when you see:
>
> <cfscript>
> arr_myArray = arrayNew(1);
> </cfscript>
>
> you kind of know that myArray is an array when you see the arrayNew()
> function after it :)
>
> It's just good habit so that you (or whoever comes after you once you get
> hit by the proverbial bus or meteorite) can more easily understand your
code
> at any given point in the page, rather than have to trace the code back to
a
> variable declaration to determine its type.
>
> That convention, I actually don't follow...but the tbl_ prefix on database
> tables I do.
>
> Different strokes. Not 'wrong' or 'right' to do either, neither, or a
> little of both. But to answer the original question...yes, there are
others
> who (by their own choice or by corporate mandate) adhere to such standards
> :)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "JediHomer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 8:48 AM
> Subject: Re: database naming conventions
>
> > The only prefixes in that respect that I use would be spr_ for sprocs...
> >
> > but even then the exec usually gives away the fact its a sproc
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
