Re: object naming conventions

"Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message news:<3f0ad03d$0$5434$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> "Brian Peasland" <oracle_dba_at_remove_spam.peasland.com> wrote in message
> news:3F0ABFDE.4793D9CC_at_remove_spam.peasland.com...
> > Like you, I agree with most of Fabian's writings. But I do know that
> > there is a difference between theory and practice. How things work on
> > the drawing board are not necessarily the way they work when you try to
> > implement them.
>
> He'll prolly contend this is precisely the attitude that
> perpetuates bad use of relational?

Agreed (him and you).

>
> Anyways, I'm a little bit more pragmatic: if it works good
> and outlasts me, then it must be OK. ;)
> I tend to be a sticker for proper application of relational
> theory. Most of the time. It's served me well in countless
> design projects, some of which are still active after nearly
> a decade...

I've gotten sloppier as time goes by. I don't think any of the things I did when I was hard-core 20 years ago are still around, the ones I know of got replaced by Oracle-projects-from-hell... :-)

>
>
> > > While I agree with most of his rant (certainly his opinion of SQL), I
> > > disagree with the implication (or did he say it explicitly?) that just
> > > because commercial products are used, logic is thrown out the window.
>
> Explicitly. As soon as commercial imperatives dictate how a
> product should work, logic is thrown out the window. I tend
> to agree in general. Commercial imperatives are driven by
> tight time schedules. Logic isn't.

I think that is going to far. I mean, as silly as the biggie-piggie apps are technically, they do work, and to replace them with something proper would be many man-years - and to really do it right would mean designing whole accounting general standards from scratch, and how long would that take?

Years ago, Celko sent me an email pointing out that the Romans didn't have theoretical engineers (or something like that)...

>
> > > He seems to ignore the fact that much "business logic" has resulted
> > > from the empirical growth of business in a non-relational manner, and
> > > is in fact difficult to express relationally. I find it very
> > > difficult to comprehend the idea of convincing people to discard
> > > thousands of calendar years of development in favor of a provably
> > > correct theory.
>
> Well, have you stopped to think why you put the quotes around
> the expression "business logic"? Yes, I think the same. ;)

Oh yes, the Dilbertians would approve of my thought processes ;)

>
> I'm quite willing to throw out the calendar years
> if they serve no other purpose than to perpetuate errors
> and bad form. That is in fact the major reason of the
> "ongoing issue" some appear to have with me and my methods
> of work. Even though very few with that "issue" have ever
> actually worked with me in ANY project...
> Details! :)

Again, it's just too darn expensive! Darwinian evolution may not be the best design or the quickest, but at least it works in environments that don't change too fast.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus. 
"IMPORT with TOUSER=non_existing_user DROPs tables in the connected
users SCHEMA. This can result in lost" - 2093524 bug description.