On 2004-12-07 19:34:42 -0500, Christopher Hicks wrote: > On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Andy Hassall wrote: > >>>The fact still remains that the generic "Host" slot could > >>>be used for this purpose quite easily, as could the "DB" slot. > >> > >>I really really object to the DB slot being called DB. Oracle's term > >>"tablespace" is much less overused and confusing than database. > > > >But Oracle tablespaces have nothing to do with connecting; they're > >logical pools of storage only, and they play no part in name resolution. > >You can't specify a "tablespace" when connecting, you connect to an > >instance of a database, and you specify a user to authenticate as, which > >then determines which schema unqualified names refer to (by default). > > I'm talking about for the generic framework. When you connect to PG or > MySQL you connect to a database within an instance. Using the word > database there is confusing because database is such an abused term. > Since tablespace is a clear term that means what MySQL calls a database I > advocate using the less ambigous term.
I don't think MySQL databases and Oracle tablespaces are similar. There
is more similarity between MySQL databases and Oracle schemas (but not a
1:1 correspondence, either).
> >So using "tablespace" in a DSN for Oracle would itself be confusing.
>
> So what? If its superfulous for Oracle so be it.
Its not superfluous, its something different. Why use a term from one
RDBMS to to designate something in another database, which a) is
conceptually very different and b) already has another name? This way
you will confuse both MySQL users (who don't know what a tablespace is)
and Oracle users (who know what a tablespace is, but expect something
else).
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | If the code is old but the problem is new
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR / LUGA | then the code probably isn't the problem.
| | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Tim Bunce on dbi-users, 2004-11-05
pgpqKXxgHzDAb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
