RE: [Reactor for CF] adding schema names

[Doug Hughes]

I’m not cast in stone on this yet, but I’m generally tending towards the use of schema as the attribute.  This should always be optional.  Furthermore, the dbms introspection should do its best to guess this (which it already does).    In the end, the schema argument would override whatever the dbms interface introspects.    Regarding the name of the attribute, the schema seems to be the best option.  Another option is owner.  But owner is rather mssql focused and is a bit of a misnomer, especially in mssql2k5.  I’m open to other suggestions.   Doug   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Beth Bowden Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 7:16 AM To: reactor@doughughes.net Subject: [Reactor for CF] adding schema names   I've heard two approaches to adding schema names for tables in the reactor config files. The first is to add an "owner" which would look like:         <object name="mytable" owner="tigger" /> The second is to allow fully qualified table names which would look like:         <object name="tigger.mytable" /> I tend towards a variation of the first were the schema name can be complicated as needed:         <object name="mytable" schema="tigger.eyore.bear" /> What are your thoughts? Total indifference, one of these or something new? Thanks, Beth -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List reactor@doughughes.net Archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List reactor@doughughes.net Archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --