[AccessD] Table naming conventions

<<<
I can't have everything I want.
>>>
Charlotte,

In MS Access database window you can create groups and put links to objects 
into these groups and rename these links whatever you need/prefer - the 
source object names will stay unchanged...

In VS.NET 2005 projects you can create folders and subforders having source 
files as well as links to the source files - by thus you can create groups 
of related source files. Unfortunately you can't give different names to the 
links as in MS Access groups still it's a useful feature to keep related 
source files grouped - especialy useful in large projects with many source 
files....

Shamil

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charlotte Foust" <cfoust at infostatsystems.com>
To: "Access Developers discussion and problem solving" 
<accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Table naming conventions


>I do use naming conventions in VB.Net, at least as much as I'm allowed
> to.  My boss decreed we would use suffixes instead of prefixes to name
> forms, reports, etc., so related objects would sort together in the
> project.  Now you have to read the entire name of the object to find out
> what it is!  We've never used prefixes on table names, or fields, so
> that hasn't been an issue in converting to .Net.  I prefer prefixes on
> table names and I prefer prefixes because they allow my eye to skate
> over the object types I don't want to examine without having to read the
> entire name of the object.  SIGH!  I can't have everything I want.
>
> Charlotte
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Shamil
> Salakhetdinov
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 11:53 AM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Table naming conventions
>
>
> <<<
> The underscore annoys me because it is harder to type than just a
>> capital letter,
>>>>
> I don't use underscore because they weren't used in LRNC.
> But typing it for me isn't a big trouble :)
>
> <<<
> I really think it boils down to whatever works for the developer,
>>>>
> Sure it is. I just accepted LRNC and I use it naturally for a long time.
> But to use other naming conventions if they are well systematically
> designed
> and applied (like JC's :)) wouldn't be a problem for me:)
>
> For example in VB.NET/C# I do not use Hungarian notation/LRNC as it's
> recommended by MS and I like it too - I'm flexible :)
>
> <<<
> It only becomes an issue in a team development environment, where
>> using the same or at least compatible naming conventions is critical.
>>>>
> Yes, in a team environment the systematic use of naming conventions is
> critical - the naming conventions approved by team leader :) - I mean
> any
> discussions what is better to use prefixes or suffixes or both or ...
> should
> be "rudely"/decisively suppressed by team leader as soon as naming
> conventions are defined  and accepted and a project starts - teamwork
> isn't
> a discussion club... :)
>
> Prefixes or suffixes in variables and even tables', queries' etc. names
> are
> getting obsolete - this is my current opinion. I still use them in MS
> Access/VBA but not in VS.NET development (except control names prefixes
> but
> these are also becoming not easy to use with so many different types of
> controls in VS.NET 2005 Winforms).
>
> Still using table name prefixes in tables' field names look reasonable
> from
> practical point of view (to build queries quicker without field names
> collisions first of all) but with mainstream tendency of relational
> back-ends becoming something more than just normalized databases and
> morphing to XML hierarchies ... -> and finally somewhere in the future
> to
> ORDBMSs or pure OODBMSs - with this clear mainstream tendency the usage
> of
> prefixes or suffixes is clearly becoming generally depreciated...
>
> I do use tbl, tlkp, qsel, qapp, ... etc. prefixes with table names and
> queries but this usage is looking more and more obsolete because a table
> can
> migrate to a set of queries(views), stored procedures, UDFs, web
> services
> etc. and vice versa then renaming could become a real time consuming and
>
> error prone problem...
>
> I did use LRNC prefixes to clearly recognize source object type, to
> group
> objects, to speed-up development but it's clear that in real life modern
>
> development using only prefixes or only suffixes or both isn't enough -
> there could be many useful groupings/sortings of the same types or
> different
> types of objects - and modern development tools supply different
> features to
> natively keep and use such groupings/sortings....
>
> There should be clear practical reasons to use prefixes or suffixes as
> it
> was with LRNC and MS Access/Office development for the last 10 years or
> with
> Hungarian notation and MSVC++ for the last 15 years ago, VB6 for the
> last 10
> years...
>
> I mean it shouldn't be like "We use prefixes or suffixes because our
> fathers
> and grand-fathers used them, we forgot/don't know why they are so keen
> and
> what for they are needed, we do not see any practical reasons now to use
>
> them but we do use them to keep the traditions alive...."
>
> Shamil
> -- 
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com