On Jun 23, 4:15*pm, joel garry <joel-ga... (AT) home (DOT) com> wrote:
Has it's place? Heck, I feel like I have lakefront property on the
liquid brimstone front here in my cube. Stop by if you want some <g>

On Jun 12, 9:54 am, timmg <tmillsgronin... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
The table name prefix is the problem. Its a form of Hungarian notation
and NOT a reasonable naming convention IMHO. Naming a table of
employees TBL_EMP is useless because the "TBL_" is redundant
information. Funny though, as I write this I realize I disagree with
myself when it comes to constraints and indices. Those I tend to name
a style like: THIS_IDX or BENEFIT_EMP_FK. Guess I should not have
reacted so strongly.

Ed
(as I slink off and slap my own wrist)

On Jun 12, 9:54 am, timmg <tmillsgronin... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
The table name prefix is the problem. Its a form of Hungarian notation
and NOT a reasonable naming convention IMHO. Naming a table of
employees TBL_EMP is useless because the "TBL_" is redundant
information. Funny though, as I write this I realize I disagree with
myself when it comes to constraints and indices. Those I tend to name
a style like: THIS_IDX or BENEFIT_EMP_FK. Guess I should not have
reacted so strongly.

Ed
(as I slink off and slap my own wrist)

On Jun 12, 9:54 am, timmg <tmillsgronin... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
The table name prefix is the problem. Its a form of Hungarian notation
and NOT a reasonable naming convention IMHO. Naming a table of
employees TBL_EMP is useless because the "TBL_" is redundant
information. Funny though, as I write this I realize I disagree with
myself when it comes to constraints and indices. Those I tend to name
a style like: THIS_IDX or BENEFIT_EMP_FK. Guess I should not have
reacted so strongly.

Ed
(as I slink off and slap my own wrist)

On Jun 12, 9:54 am, timmg <tmillsgronin... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
The table name prefix is the problem. Its a form of Hungarian notation
and NOT a reasonable naming convention IMHO. Naming a table of
employees TBL_EMP is useless because the "TBL_" is redundant
information. Funny though, as I write this I realize I disagree with
myself when it comes to constraints and indices. Those I tend to name
a style like: THIS_IDX or BENEFIT_EMP_FK. Guess I should not have
reacted so strongly.

Ed
(as I slink off and slap my own wrist)

On Jun 26, 12:27*pm, Ed Prochak <edproc... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
Ah, the benefits of civil responses over flames - turns out we're on
common ground. I have some troubles with tbl as a prefix as well. I
tend to use it in VB/Access, where knowledge of the datatype - query
v. table makes sense in code. Within Oracle it is, I agree, a bit of
a repetitive redundancy.

And I think that we're in agreement that _some_ kind of naming
convention is a good thing.

Right now I'm working on an application where some of the data will
reside in Oracle - CONTROL_LIST, for example. Within Access there is
a link to that table called tbl_CONTROL_LIST. It's enough to give me
what I need to manage the Access code without worrying about
unnecessary overhead in Oracle.

Tim Mills-Groninger

On Jun 26, 12:27*pm, Ed Prochak <edproc... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
Ah, the benefits of civil responses over flames - turns out we're on
common ground. I have some troubles with tbl as a prefix as well. I
tend to use it in VB/Access, where knowledge of the datatype - query
v. table makes sense in code. Within Oracle it is, I agree, a bit of
a repetitive redundancy.

And I think that we're in agreement that _some_ kind of naming
convention is a good thing.

Right now I'm working on an application where some of the data will
reside in Oracle - CONTROL_LIST, for example. Within Access there is
a link to that table called tbl_CONTROL_LIST. It's enough to give me
what I need to manage the Access code without worrying about
unnecessary overhead in Oracle.

Tim Mills-Groninger

On Jun 26, 12:27*pm, Ed Prochak <edproc... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
Ah, the benefits of civil responses over flames - turns out we're on
common ground. I have some troubles with tbl as a prefix as well. I
tend to use it in VB/Access, where knowledge of the datatype - query
v. table makes sense in code. Within Oracle it is, I agree, a bit of
a repetitive redundancy.

And I think that we're in agreement that _some_ kind of naming
convention is a good thing.

Right now I'm working on an application where some of the data will
reside in Oracle - CONTROL_LIST, for example. Within Access there is
a link to that table called tbl_CONTROL_LIST. It's enough to give me
what I need to manage the Access code without worrying about
unnecessary overhead in Oracle.

Tim Mills-Groninger

On Jun 26, 12:27*pm, Ed Prochak <edproc... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
Ah, the benefits of civil responses over flames - turns out we're on
common ground. I have some troubles with tbl as a prefix as well. I
tend to use it in VB/Access, where knowledge of the datatype - query
v. table makes sense in code. Within Oracle it is, I agree, a bit of
a repetitive redundancy.

And I think that we're in agreement that _some_ kind of naming
convention is a good thing.

Right now I'm working on an application where some of the data will
reside in Oracle - CONTROL_LIST, for example. Within Access there is
a link to that table called tbl_CONTROL_LIST. It's enough to give me
what I need to manage the Access code without worrying about
unnecessary overhead in Oracle.

Tim Mills-Groninger