• Grant Fritchey (10/13/2010)


    Oh please no, not tables named TBxxx. That's just so 1992 (not to mention, very, very Access). Surely, at this point in history, we can simply name a table, or an object in code, for the business need it represents. The whole concept of Hungarian style notation should surely be dieing in this day & age.

    Unfortunately in this day & age we still don't have relational databases that allow us to divide our various objects into different name spaces, so this task is left to the developer. At some point we are potentially going to want to name one thing "table X" and another thing "view X", and the only difference in the names will be whatever we choose to designate something as being a "view" vs. "table". If we choose nothing to designate tables from views, then we have to start making arbitrary name choices in order to accomplish this, but the whole point of RAP is consistency, and its code generators never make arbitrary choices.

    With regards to the "xxx": this is no different that putting things into .NET name spaces. Once again, the relational database does not give us any tools for compartmentalizing our tables, so we must unfortunately do it ourselves. Presumably if we object to this convention (or at least some convention for accomplishing this) then we'd also prefer the good old days of VB6, where every global object was in the same gigantic name pool.

    The design decisions of RAP were not made with regards to what was or is in or out of fashion. Rather they were designed to give RAP maximum capability for managing database object names with a maximum of regularity and a minimum of arbitrary variation.