Stefan Guenther wrote:
>
> Hi,
> the naming scheme seems to to be nice, but
>
> <snip>
> >
> > Visitor -> TurbineUser
> > (new table) TurbineGroup
> > UserRole -> > TurbineRole
> > Permission -> TurbinePermission
> > VisitorRole -> TurbineUserGroupRole
> > RolePermission -> TurbineRolePermission
> >
> > pros
> > + does not confict with SQL reserved words
> > + matches class naming
> > + more intuitive
> > + less probability with user app living in the same DB
> >
> > cons
> > - more typing
> - some db systems has restrictions on name-length of database-objects, e.g.
> Informix 18 chars (lowercase) on all objects (tables, columns, views, ...)
>
> So here a shorter prefix instead of Turbine would do better.
Ugh. -1 on supporting databases with arbitrary restrictions like this
(i.e. broken).
--
Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
