This question is locked. New answers and comments are not allowed.
1. Let us choose if we want OpenAccess to alter our table or entity(field) names when creating classes from database.
2. You should not use any reserved names like "Module" and so on - and therefore alter our tables to ex. Module1.
3. I suggest you prefix all your reserved names with OpenAccessReserved_name.
4. Would like to see a more graphic approach, like ex. LINQ to SQL and Access uses. The special things/rules that OpenAccess offers could be symbolized with some extra icons around the table layouts with a tooltip on hoover. Or a "rules behind" object represented like an extra window(with a header) behind the table window.
2. You should not use any reserved names like "Module" and so on - and therefore alter our tables to ex. Module1.
3. I suggest you prefix all your reserved names with OpenAccessReserved_name.
4. Would like to see a more graphic approach, like ex. LINQ to SQL and Access uses. The special things/rules that OpenAccess offers could be symbolized with some extra icons around the table layouts with a tooltip on hoover. Or a "rules behind" object represented like an extra window(with a header) behind the table window.
11 Answers, 1 is accepted
0
Hello Bo,
Thanks for you input, we will rethink about our class name generation and UI layout in the reverse engineering. We are redesigning it anyway to give a better overview and mass operation possibilities.
I do not understand #3 which reserved things do you mean?
Sincerely yours,
Jan Blessenohl
the Telerik team
Check out Telerik Trainer, the state of the art learning tool for Telerik products.
Thanks for you input, we will rethink about our class name generation and UI layout in the reverse engineering. We are redesigning it anyway to give a better overview and mass operation possibilities.
I do not understand #3 which reserved things do you mean?
Sincerely yours,
Jan Blessenohl
the Telerik team
Check out Telerik Trainer, the state of the art learning tool for Telerik products.
0
Hessner
Top achievements
Rank 2
Rank 2
answered on 20 Dec 2008, 11:38 AM
Thanks Jan.
Regarding #3, then I have experienced that a table name like "Moduler" are altered to to"Moduler1" because it was a reserved word to OpenAccess.
Regarding #3, then I have experienced that a table name like "Moduler" are altered to to"Moduler1" because it was a reserved word to OpenAccess.
0
Hello Hessner,
That was #2 for me.
Do you mean whenever we try to change reserved names we should just prepend OpenAccessRenamed_ to it instead of adding numbers?
That is fine and I put it on the list.
Kind regards,
Jan Blessenohl
the Telerik team
Check out Telerik Trainer, the state of the art learning tool for Telerik products.
That was #2 for me.
Do you mean whenever we try to change reserved names we should just prepend OpenAccessRenamed_ to it instead of adding numbers?
That is fine and I put it on the list.
Kind regards,
Jan Blessenohl
the Telerik team
Check out Telerik Trainer, the state of the art learning tool for Telerik products.
0
Hessner
Top achievements
Rank 2
Rank 2
answered on 22 Dec 2008, 04:21 PM
No no no, Jan, that is not what I am trying to say :-)
YOU should alter all your internal name to OpenAccess_yourname, and leave our names as we defined them.
It is not acceptable that a 3-part tool interfere with it's customers database naming standards.
It's fine that you suggest how things can be done better, optimized and so on - but please do not change names when mapping.
0
Hello Hessner,
If you reverse engineer you model, we do not change your schema at all. Can you pls. give me an explicit example. Even if I sound a little slow-witted :)
Regards,
Jan Blessenohl
the Telerik team
Check out Telerik Trainer, the state of the art learning tool for Telerik products.
If you reverse engineer you model, we do not change your schema at all. Can you pls. give me an explicit example. Even if I sound a little slow-witted :)
Regards,
Jan Blessenohl
the Telerik team
Check out Telerik Trainer, the state of the art learning tool for Telerik products.
0
Hessner
Top achievements
Rank 2
Rank 2
answered on 23 Dec 2008, 07:19 PM
Hi Jan,
My tablename = "moduler"
When mapped to a class, you change it to Classname = "moduler1"
I have to reference "moduler1" everytime I want to receive data from my table(moduler), via OpenAccess.
This is not logic, to me, I expect you to use "moduler" as the Classname.
My tablename = "moduler"
When mapped to a class, you change it to Classname = "moduler1"
I have to reference "moduler1" everytime I want to receive data from my table(moduler), via OpenAccess.
This is not logic, to me, I expect you to use "moduler" as the Classname.
0
Hello Hessner,
I just tried it out, it is true if the tablename is Module because that is not supported by VB. But Moduler gets a class Moduler in my case.
Pls. tell me more about your schema so that i can reproduce it.
Kind regards,
Jan Blessenohl
the Telerik team
Check out Telerik Trainer, the state of the art learning tool for Telerik products.
I just tried it out, it is true if the tablename is Module because that is not supported by VB. But Moduler gets a class Moduler in my case.
Pls. tell me more about your schema so that i can reproduce it.
Kind regards,
Jan Blessenohl
the Telerik team
Check out Telerik Trainer, the state of the art learning tool for Telerik products.
0
Hessner
Top achievements
Rank 2
Rank 2
answered on 25 Dec 2008, 06:09 PM
Hi Jan,
Sorry about my misspell:
My tablename = "Modules" maps to a className="Module1".
My tablename = "Events" maps to className="Event1".
Why will it not map 1-1?
Sorry about my misspell:
My tablename = "Modules" maps to a className="Module1".
My tablename = "Events" maps to className="Event1".
Why will it not map 1-1?
0
Hello Hessner,
that is because the Modules table looks like plural to the rev eng process, which tries to figure out the singular name, in your case Module. But now, neither the name module nor the name event is easy to use in VB/C#, so they get 'disambiguated' by appending a 1.
Maybe the algorithm is suboptimal, but at least is generates compilable code from table names which could lead to non-compilable code otherwise. Think table and column names like 'while' or 'event' or 'select'.
Regards,
Thomas
the Telerik team
Check out Telerik Trainer, the state of the art learning tool for Telerik products.
that is because the Modules table looks like plural to the rev eng process, which tries to figure out the singular name, in your case Module. But now, neither the name module nor the name event is easy to use in VB/C#, so they get 'disambiguated' by appending a 1.
Maybe the algorithm is suboptimal, but at least is generates compilable code from table names which could lead to non-compilable code otherwise. Think table and column names like 'while' or 'event' or 'select'.
Regards,
Thomas
the Telerik team
Check out Telerik Trainer, the state of the art learning tool for Telerik products.
0
Hessner
Top achievements
Rank 2
Rank 2
answered on 30 Dec 2008, 12:39 AM
Now I begin to understand why you do,- what you do.
But I do not want singular names, I want the names to map 1-1 with my table names.
When I create a datamodel and implement it in SQL-server I never think "while, event, select" -
when I name tables, nor does anyone I know.
But your answer do explain why the number adding are happening.
0
Hi Hessner,
we certainly will provide a bigger flexibility over the name generator in a future version; for the forward engineering you can already turn the disambiguation/mangling off by using the <useModelNames> backend configuration.
I record this conversation as a request to provide a check box that allows to use the table names as class names and column names as field names directly. Again, when we see a non-compilable word we will need to provide a substitute (event,module).
Best wishes,
Thomas
the Telerik team
Check out Telerik Trainer, the state of the art learning tool for Telerik products.
we certainly will provide a bigger flexibility over the name generator in a future version; for the forward engineering you can already turn the disambiguation/mangling off by using the <useModelNames> backend configuration.
I record this conversation as a request to provide a check box that allows to use the table names as class names and column names as field names directly. Again, when we see a non-compilable word we will need to provide a substitute (event,module).
Best wishes,
Thomas
the Telerik team
Check out Telerik Trainer, the state of the art learning tool for Telerik products.