Lucian


If the main reason for wanting these long database names is to make it easier to see in EDBManager why not use the description. I haven't looked at EDBManager's code but I don't think there are many places where the database name is displayed so it should be possible to display the description instead, possibly with the name afterwards.

Roy Lambert

Lucian,

EDB Manager displays database name and I doubt that you can distinguish
between the following two databases having names according to your wish - in
EDB Manager you have to select one on the eye basis:

ABCCUSTOMERXXX-9B27A24391274FD5BFAEB5438777523B
ABCCUSTOMERXXX-9B27A24391274FD58FAEB5438777523B (this one is not the same as
first one)

Therefore I second Tim's proposal. I use the following database name scheme:
<program>-<username>. Using this scheme you can easily locate a particular
database for different users.

I think that there is no real need to have names of databases having
enormous lengths

Regards
Iztok Lajovic


"Lucian Radulescu" <lucianATez-delphiDOTcom> je napisal v sporoèilo
news:xn0gpg3d9csvm6004@news.elevatesoft.com ...
>> Hmm, I'm not sure if I can or want to do that.  Is there any reason
>> why you can't just use a unique customer name for each database ?
>
> Yes, I could have a customer using more than one application, storing
> data for both apps on the same server, but data is different so I'd
> like different database name for that so that it can be easily viewed
> in edb manager. And this is when complications start.
>
> Lucian

> why not use the description

All rightieee!! I was using the "Icons" view since day one, forgot
about "Details". That's it! I'm dropping the request, couldn't care
less what the length of the db name is

--
regards,
Lucian

> It's possible, but not standard.

Actually it is standard. FAT, FAT32, NTFS are actually M$shit databases
and they do that since I can remember we are used to that.


> Identifiers are normally not allowed to begin with numbers.
> Most languages are like that.


yeah, yeah, yeah ... so what? Give me a good approach to store 2000
customers databases on the same server. Sure I can use the Description
as Roy suggested, but *that* most certainly isn't standard.

I'm not after huge database names, but since this came up, let me tell
you that I believe 40 is pretty limited (M$ folks thought of that long
time ago and invented long file names if you think about it).

In any case I'm dropping this one.


regards,
Lucian

> I think that there is no real need to have names of databases having
> enormous lengths

No doubts. I have a colegue that (still) thinks file names should be 8
chars. That's why I have to cope with file names like:

ASKCTRY (right, something about country)
ASK_PREG
FARTONT (no, it's not a medical program
FAOIOC
CBRDCOPY (not, it has nothing to do with Clipboard)
EDNOC
PICKSOLA
PICKSOLE
PICKSOLF (I'm not kidding)
..
..
..


Lucian

Lucian


You may be able to persuade Tim to show the description in a way that's better for you. Certainly you have more chance with that than increasing the size of the names

Roy Lambert

Lucian,

<< I'm not after huge database names, but since this came up, let me tell
you that I believe 40 is pretty limited (M$ folks thought of that long time
ago and invented long file names if you think about it). >>

Yes, but after a certain point the length of the name becomes a hindrance to
readability and is a pain having to type the darn thing over and over again.
I think that 40 is a nice balance between being too short and too long.

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com

Lucian,

<< Actually it is standard. FAT, FAT32, NTFS are actually M$shit databases
and they do that since I can remember we are used to that. >>

Actually, I meant "standard" in the "SQL standard" meaning.

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com

> Yes, but after a certain point the length of the name becomes a
> hindrance to readability

How come a longer name (obviously very explicit and clear) can become a
readability issue, I can't understand...


> and is a pain having to type the darn thing

In this particular case, nobody types it. It's automatically created
and used by the application and, at the application level it's a
"string" and the code really doesn't care it's 40 or 120 (company names
in Canada can be 120 chars long, for example)


> I think that 40 is a nice balance between ...

Yeah, maybe what can I say.

I have the same kind of problems with my data. How long should
"SurName" field be or "StreetName".... As a paranthesis to all this,
right now, the name of the street where I live and the name of the
building itself are so long/weird that they don't fit on any documents
one has to fill out when dealling with bureacracy (if you'd see my DL
you'll understand . Banks so far have the shortest fields in this
matter

Usually with me, a field length is good until someone proves me wrong



regards,
Lucian

> Actually, I meant "standard" in the "SQL standard" meaning.

Yes I know. I was just saying that most probably a lot of folks are
used to put equal sign between the name of a folder and the name of the
database.

From what I remember in Paradox the folder name was the database, same
with FlashFiler and same with DBISAM (yes you could name it different
than the folder, I however never did that). Interbase is using a single
file for that so all my IB databases would be stored in something like
.....\DATABASES\IB while M$ SQL server stores it hell knows where

Lucian