Le 25/05/2012 18:00, Paul Poulain a écrit : > The bug 7065 add a foreign key to the reserves table, so I think it's > time to clearly choose how we name primary keys. > > The possible options are below, my opinion: > > 1- id alone => will result in complexity & mistakes, this option must > be discarded > 2- xxxxid => short option, may result in hard readability. > 3- xxxxId => we haven't decided if we want UC in field names. I won't > discard this option, but does not favour it. > 4- xxx_id => _ still undecided in field names, I'm not sure it's much > better than the xxxid one > 5- xxxxnumber => number is quite long, and may result in very long > field names, which is not good. I does not like this option. Reviving / concluding this thread: * 4 are for column_id (jared, Ian, Kyle, and me) * 1 is for id (marc_b) * I think chris_n agreed for _id at the end.
I consider _id is adopted and will update coding guidelines accordingly -- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08 _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
