John W. Colby
jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com
Wed Jun 22 13:53:36 CDT 2005
1) Try doing a find on a field name used all over the damned database and then come back and tell me how much you hate it. 2) Relationship finding wizards are for wusses who don't create explicit relationships (should be shot BTW). 3) <there is no need to prefix the column names since you can do so unambiguously using the table name as a prefix (i.e. Customers.CustomerID = Orders.CustomerID). Yes, e3xcept that there are a TON of places where this doesn't work such as the field that a control is bound to. Try searching for Orders.CustomerID and you won't find all the places where just CustomerID is used. >The prefixes hide the relationships while admittedly revealing the table sources... but if we are really going to go in this direction, I would rather use suffixes (i.e. CustomerID_Customers, CustomerID_Orders, CustomerID_Payments etc.) -- so they are logically grouped together according to domain type rather than table name. I know you are into suffixes, but this isn't something that you are going to see in a tab window or something so it is not going to help there. Here's you change back. ;-) John W. Colby www.ColbyConsulting.com Contribute your unused CPU cycles to a good cause: http://folding.stanford.edu/ -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Arthur Fuller Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 2:35 PM To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving' Subject: RE: [AccessD] Field Naming ( Just once I want to be ahead of JC ) My $.02... I hate such naming conventions, for three reasons: a) they defeat the natural logic of the various relationship-finding wizards; b) there is no need to prefix the column names since you can do so unambiguously using the table name as a prefix (i.e. Customers.CustomerID = Orders.CustomerID). c) the prefixes hide the relationships while admittedly revealing the table sources... but if we are really going to go in this direction, I would rather use suffixes (i.e. CustomerID_Customers, CustomerID_Orders, CustomerID_Payments etc.) -- so they are logically grouped together according to domain type rather than table name. Arthur -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Joe Hecht Sent: June 22, 2005 2:11 PM To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving' Subject: RE: [AccessD] Field Naming ( Just once I want to be ahead of JC ) My gosh, I had an idea that drew liked too. Joe Hecht Los Angeles CA -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of DWUTKA at marlow.com Subject: RE: [AccessD] Field Naming ( Just once I want to be ahead of JC ) Not a bad idea. Drew -----Original Message----- From: Joe Hecht [mailto:jmhecht at earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 11:37 AM To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving' Subject: [AccessD] Field Naming ( Just once I want to be ahead of JC ) When naming fields in table design view I try to prefix the field with something to identify the source table i.e.: Custfname custLname repfname replname Joe Hecht Los Angeles CA -- AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com -- AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com -- AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com -- AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com