[geeklog-devel] Re: GL2 Schema

[LIMBURG, Mark]

Howdy,

 > > Agreed on using meaningful column names.  You know if you 
 > > spent a little time googling you could probalby find a DB 
 > > standard doc we could modify to suit us.  This is important 
 > > especially for module developers as we will want to comply 
 > > with our database stuff as well.  Just a thought...
 > 
 > I did that again last night and I still get the same results. 
 > Everyone has  there own opinions. I tend to follow the works 
 > of Joe Celko (SQL Guru), with my own changes.
 > 
 > Right now I'm trying a few applications to make the conversion 
 > of all three dbs easier. Unfortunately there are not many db 
 > design tools that support mysql, postgresql and sql server.  
 > The ones I have found, I'm not impressed. It might be back 
 > to good old manual way.

Have we thought how we will be addressing the more advanced features on some
db's ... transactions, stored procedures and triggers come immediatly to
mind.  Whilst it would be a Good Thing (tm) to support all these, problems
would arise across products and even versions.  

MySQL4 handles transactions fairly well, but stored procedures and triggers
arn't possible yet.  A simple stored procedure process may be possible by
having an 'interpretation layer' - where dbs like postgresql and oracle can
just execute the stored procedure, and other db's would need to have a bit
more php code to juggle/handle the output.

Just random thoughts from a pre-caffinated geek :)

Regards,

Mark Limburg
Team Leader, Unix Operations, Information Systems

BAE SYSTEMS, AUSTRALIA
PO Box 1068, Salisbury
South Australia,  5108
Phone: +61 8 8480 7971
Fax:   +61 8 8480 8866
Mobile:+61 4 0448 0599


 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Dwight Trumbower [mailto:dwight at trumbower.com]
 > Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 1:24 AM
 > To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
 > Subject: [geeklog-devel] Re: GL2 Schema
 > 
 > 
 > At 11:23 PM 1/20/2003 -0600, you wrote:
 > >It's funny how this works.  I've always been accustom (at 
 > work, anyway) to 
 > >using singlar tables names.  I'm flexible.  Just choose 
 > one...I don't 
 > >think any of use cares much ;-)
 > >