Re: [Maypole] plurality in column names

From: Simon Flack (sf at flacks.net)
Date: Wed Feb 02 2005 - 20:21:55 GMT


Dana Hudes wrote:
> We've bandied this about. I've come up with a definitive
> argument against messing with the plurality of column names.
> When we record a woman's measurements, we do not say "hip"
> measurement, we say "hips" because the measurement isn't
> around one hip its around two.

I don't think I've ever had occasion to, but I think I'd say "hip
measurement".

If there are hard and fast rules about plurality, I don't know what they
are. Do you know why we brush our teeth with a toothbrush and not a
teethbrush?

As far as I'm concerned, you can call your tables and columns whatever
you like. I think it's more important that there's a naming 'convention'
  (i.e. it's consistent and predictable).

Maypole /shouldn't/ get in the way (other than a few reserved method
names). But I suspect that the problems you're having with naming is
coming from Class::DBI::Loader::Relationship or Class::DBI::Loader.
Maypole should accommodate a custom loader or vanilla Class::DBI
packages via Maypole::Model::CDBI::Plain.

HTH
Simon

_______________________________________________
maypole mailing list
maypole at lists.netthink.co.uk
http://lists.netthink.co.uk/listinfo/maypole



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Feb 24 2005 - 22:25:58 GMT