It's possible someone make extension which contains Code in name, so I think it would be best to use the full name of extension On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Petr Bena <benapetr(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> I think we should create a page describing standards for names of keys >> in preferences and database objects for extensions. I propose to make >> it standard to prefix all keys in $preferences array with the name of >> extensions at least or some other words maybe (e_ExtensionName_Value >> ?). >> >> The same should apply for database objects like tables. The main >> reason for this is to avoid collision given that we already have lot >> of extensions. What do you think? >> > > For database tables, I think as long as you're consistent > within an extension, the prefix can be anything that makes > sense. > > For example, in CodeReview we use code_* for our table > names. > > -Chad > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 4:27 AM, Petr Bena <benapetr(a)gmail.com> wrote: There's a page on MediaWiki.org for registering extension namespaces.[0]  If this is actually a problem, you could make something similar for table names. [0] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_default_namespaces _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

On 19/04/12 11:11, Petr Bena wrote: Some db engines have limitations in the number of characters of table names. I think Oracle was the worst offender, with a 30 character limit. It's preferable to have a table named "lst_sections" than "LabeledSectionTransclusion_sec" (hitting the length limit). Plus, we should also keep some space for a possible $wgDBPrefix. It may be interesting to store the tables used in $wgExtensionCredits, though.