Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
![]() |
![]() |
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Short_names vs long_names objects...
There was a bug in 901/9201 when using forms. If you have views 9used in
oracle forms) whose name is 8,16 or 24 characters they didn't work. We
encountered this bug. It has been so long don't even remember what we
did to fix it, but anyways we quickly migrated to 9202.
As for the 30 chars limit, we had some developers who complained that 30 characters was too small to name an object, to which I once replied "you really don't have to write a one liner, oracle doesn't execute the object name". They got the joke and the meaning behind it.
Raj
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Tim Gorman
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 9:26 AM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: Re: Short_names vs long_names objects...
Ask them to prove it. Having "heard it somewhere" or "read about it somewhere" is insufficient.
30 chars is the limit in the data dictionary columns for most names; doing a describe on the data dictionary view or underlying table proves this. As with all limits, there are many good reasons not to push up close against them. Frequently other objects (i.e. indexes, triggers, constraints, etc) benefit from having the table name as a component of their name, so naming objects to accommodate these habits as well as the 30-char limit makes sense.
-- Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.htmlReceived on Tue May 25 2004 - 11:31:49 CDT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
![]() |
![]() |