|Seeking feedback on BZ 199612 - changing name of SQL Model-JDBC Connection profile [message #34292]
||Fri, 10 August 2007 18:12
Originally posted by: brianf.sybase.com|
We have a new BZ entry - 199612 - "Rename "SQL Model-JDBC Connection" to
"Generic JDBC Connection"
(https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=199612) that we would like to
get some feedback from the community about. Though I am sending this to the
newsgroup, I will also post this on the mailing lists for more coverage.
The text for the BZ entry says: "Using 'SQL Model-JDBC Connection' as the
connection profile type name and the profile wizard name is too technical
and not easy to understand, especially for those who are new to DTP and know
nothing about SQL model. Rename it to 'Generic JDBC Connection' (the
original name when DTP was set up) would be more appropriate."
Folks at Sybase believe that "Generic JDBC" would be easier to understand as
a connection profile name than "SQL Model-JDBC Connection". What do you (the
DTP community at large) think?
Please post your comments to the BZ entry directly so we can capture them.
Along the same lines, I've pasted a screen shot of the New Connection
Profile wizard's wizard selection page here. As you can see, we do not have
a consistent naming convention for any of the main profiles that we provide
via DTP (except for the ODA folks, who have consistently labeled theirs
"[Type] Data Source" which is great).
How should we be labeling these profiles? Should we follow the Derby example
and use "[DBMS Name] Database" as the format? That would incur the following
changes, yet be consistent within DTP and DTP Enablement-provided
Derby Embedded Database -> (stays the same)
HSQLDB Connection Profile -> HSQLDB Database
PostgreSQL JDBC Connection -> PostgreSQL Database
SQL Model-JDBC Connection -> Generic JDBC Database
Sybase ASA -> Sybase ASA Database
Any opinions on this?
Thanks in advance!
Senior Software Engineer/DTP Committer
(Size: 31.75KB, Downloaded 163 times)
Powered by FUDForum
. Page generated in 0.20194 seconds