Bob the Mushroom (10/27/2010)
Hi David,How configurable are the object names? I know that it's initially unlikely anyone will bother to look into the database if it's getting auto-generated, but auto-generation isn't necessarily an excuse for failing to meet coding guidelines. Anyone who works with me and creates a stored procedure called SPTBadmUser_Delete is going to get it in the neck pretty quickly - exactly the same as any developer who creates a DataSet variable using a ds- prefix. YMMV, but in my opinion UserDelete gets the point across perfectly succinctly, possibly more rapidly for a human reader. I don't need the name to reflect the fact that it's a stored procedure that acts on a table, just the object being modified and the action being performed on it.
Right now RAP is pretty tied to its object name conventions. RAP is delivered in source form so of course if you were inclined you could change its conventions. But as for getting rid of the naming conventions entirely, I wish you luck.
For example, what is "UserDelete"? It makes perfect sense if you already know what it is, but does everyone know what it is? My schema might contain a table called "UserDelete". Or "UserDelete" might be a stored procedure. Probably it isn't a function (because functions can't modify data) but what about "UserFetch"? Is that a function or a stored procedure? Or is that a table too?
Systematic code generation requires totally unambiguous naming conventions. If you try to create a code generator without using a RAP-like system of being totally unambigouous, I predict you'll end up with users who are generating identical names for different objects. In RAP, the odds of doing this are precisely - zero.