This also depends on how you're accessing the DB: if you're using Hibernate, iBatis, etc. then there's a convenient layer of abstraction such that the mapping from Java method => stored proc need only occur in the mapping file(s) and leave code out of it.
Given my underlying mistrust of DB developers I've almost always had, or created, a layer between what they do and what I do, to the point of having maps of interface impls that actually do the DB calls (pre-Hibernate days). d. --- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Given the refactoring tools in IDEs today, I'd > probably go with > keeping the names in synch as opposed to keeping > some other form of > documentation in synch; since, if the classes are > not named then same, > then you might have to otherwise document which > class calls which > stored procedure. > > One counter argument might be that "Csm5RRP" doesn't > seem like a > meaningful name. If it has no meaning in the > business domain, then the > stored procedure might be considered an > implementation detail, better > hidden behind a facade. In that case, we might want > to give the parser > a meaningful name, like QuarterlySalesReport, and > let it encapsulate > which stored procedure happens to be involved. > > (Unless of course, the stored procedures were > renamed to better > describe their function.) > > -Ted. > > On Nov 21, 2007 9:35 AM, Zhang, Larry (L.) > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I knew my question may not be very related to this > list, but let me just > > ask anyway: > > > > I have many DB2 stored procedures, for each > procedure I correspondingly > > have a Java parser to parser the result set. I > currently name these > > classes the same name as stored procedure. > Example, Csm5RRP (this is the > > stored procedure name), then my Java class name is > Csm5RRPParser.java. > > > > Then 2 days ago, they have to change the names for > all the stored > > procedure, to makes things meaningful, I have to > rename all my java > > classes. -- this is really a pain. > > > > Do you guys have an argument on this? Is this a > good naming practice? If > > not, what will be the naming convention in this > situation? > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
