On 8 Jan 2004, at 16:23, Brian Blood wrote:
On 1/8/04 8:57 AM, "Ilja Booij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If anybody disagrees with this: please yell and tell me why :)
I'm willing to do the work to add in table prefixes.
OK Brian, If you're willing to do this:
We need to decide on a design.
1. configurable prefix. I guess the default should be an empty prefix,
to default to the current table names.
2. do tablenames also need to configurable like [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mentioned in a previous message? If queries get table names from
variables, it shouldn't be so hard to make the whole table name
configurable.
Problem with configurable table names is, I don't see why one would
need this.. Prefixes make sense to me, but completely configurable
table names sound like over-complication to me.
Please shoot at my arguments. I think we need some strict requirements
on this before Brian gets to work ;)
Ilja
--
IC&S
Stadhouderslaan 57
3583 JD Utrecht
telnr. 030-6355730
faxnr. 030-6355731
PGP-key:
http://www.ic-s.nl/keys/ilja.txt
