[hibernate-dev] Naming and "naming strategies"

[Gunnar Morling]

2015-01-14 16:06 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole <steve at hibernate.org>:

> > So I also propose to shift this to use that Identifier class
>>
>> I like that idea.
>>
>> Is it correct to say it represents a logical name basically? If so, how
>> about naming it "LogicalName"? "Identifier" seems too generic to me (e.g.
>> easily to be mixed up with entity identifiers). Would that class/interface
>> define a method String getPhysicalName()? That should nicely encapsulate
>> the quote handling.
>>
>
> Well that depends on how we interpret "logical name".  Take a table named
> "my_table" in the "my_schema" schema as part of the "my_catalog" catalog.
> Now, each of those individual "names" would be an
> * tableName = new Identifier( "my_table", false );
> * schemaName = new Identifier( "my_schema", false );
> * catalogName = new Identifier( "my_catalog", false );
>
> So Identifier really just represents the parts of a "object name" (in SQL
> terms).
>
> Now historically, the logical name of a table is represented by this
> qualified form.  Remember though that "historically" points specifically to
> growing from hbm.xml  mapping where this is not really an issue.
>
> As an aside, in that metamodel branch there is also an aggregated form to
> represent the qualified table name by composing all 3 components together,
> as well as physically grouping them into Schema objects.  But there is no
> natural corollary to these concepts in org.hibernate.mapping, and so I will
> not pull them over.  Although... I will say that it might be better to use
> that typed form (QualifiedTableName class aggregating the 3 compoment
> names) as the "cross reference key".
>

Yes, such an aggregated form indeed is how I had done it on first thought.
But then I don't really know the code which would be using it, so I cannot
comment on whether that'd be feasible or doable at this point of time.