I know there is an old saying that there is no problem in computer science that can't be solved by another level of indirection. It seems to me that there is a clear opportunity to apply this to database field-naming. Often, in a subsequent release, it will become clear that a field-name was poorly chosen (1). But by then there may be so many queries, stored procedures and reports that reference the field name in question, that it is inconceivable to rename simply for the sake of "housekeeping".
So, why can't fields have two names--a numeric ID, and a traditional name? IDEs, reporting tools, etc could display the traditional name for user convenience, but then build in terms of the numeric ID. It seems to me that this would be a nice useability and maintenance win, and would provide the database vendor implementing it a new competitive feature. Given Microsoft's level of integration, it seems like an obvious thing for them to do.
_______________
(1) There are a million reasons this can happen, one obvious one is merger's and acquisitions. Let's suppose a field was named "Acme Order Number", and then Acme is acquired by National.
10:48:36 PM 
|
|
