[cgiapp] Re: [OT] CGI::Session is good, but we can do better (a new project is born?)

[Mark Stosberg <suppressed>]

On 2005-06-17, Ron Savage <suppressed> wrote:
> Hi Mark
>
> Just curious - would we be free to name the table and all the columns any way we want?

I don't think I'd put this version in v1.0, but it shouldn't be too hard to
add. I'd probably follow the pattern I used in CGI::Uploader. 

> I have my own policy on this:
>
> http://savage.net.au/Ron/html/naming-database-objects.html
>
> which, of course, I do not expect anyone else to follow...

At the moment, I'm eastbound on I-70 without net access, but I'll be curious to
read that later. I also believe in the value of DB naming conventions, and
Summersault uses one we've published on our corporate intranet.

Recently I worked on a project where the customer spec'ed columns named with a
different convention. I must have stumbled have a dozen times that "email" was
now "EmailAddress". Consistent names can really help productivity. 

Conversely, I recently spent several /hours/ because of poor naming internal to
CGI::Session. It uses ATIME, CTIME, and ETIME. The all lock very similar, and
even the values look consistent because they are expressed in seconds. However,
ETIME is a relative number of seconds, while the others are absolute values
since the Epoch. I tried to improve this in PureSQL with columns named
"last_access_time", "creation_time" and "duration", which what "ETIME" really
is. 

    Mark

--
http://mark.stosberg.com/



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Web Archive:  http://www.mail-archive.com/suppressed/
              http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2
To unsubscribe, e-mail: suppressed
For additional commands, e-mail: suppressed