Re: [ovirt-devel] Entity names in DB scripts

From: "Moti Asayag" <masayag(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Eli Mesika" <emesika(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com&gt;, devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 7:33:06 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Entity names in DB scripts ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eli Mesika" <emesika(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 4:56:50 PM > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Entity names in DB scripts > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com&gt; > > To: devel(a)ovirt.org > > Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 3:20:18 PM > > Subject: [ovirt-devel] Entity names in DB scripts > > > > Hi all, > > I have a feeling there is some inconsistency in using entity names in the > > DB > > scripts. > > For example, should we use Host or VDS? > > I am not talking about existing tables or columns but about new ones (and > > new > > stored procedures). > > > > I am quite sure I saw patches containing both approaches. I guess that includes any recent patches around the network area. > > You are right > I think old should be kept until we have the time to do a global > find/replace > of all old names. Without enabling the "new" (or more appropriate) naming to new code we: 1. Increase the amount of 'old' code in the system (gaining more debts) 2. As a result - more work when and if global change will take affect. 3. Double the entire work flow: code + review. That change should start at some point, and having it incrementally is a valid approach to achieve that goal.

> The only place in which I encourage new names are application log/audit > messages > > > > > Yair > > _______________________________________________ > > Devel mailing list > > Devel(a)ovirt.org > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >