dynamobi/dynamobi — Issue #197: [LDB-124] a few minor issues with DBA views
Author: dynamobi-build
Created: 2011-12-30 02:20:58+00:00
State: closed
Labels: DBA Views, LDB

[reporter="jvs", created="Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:30:07 -0500 (GMT-05:00)"]
1) Inconsistency: column ordinals are 1-based, whereas routine parameters are 0-based. I think both should be 1-based since that's the JDBC metadata API standard (even though internally we represent everything as 0-based). Also, for column it's ORDINAL_POSITION, whereas for parameters it's just ORDINAL. I think both should be ORDINAL_POSITION.

2) Inconsistency: DBA_COLUMNS.IS_NULLABLE returns VARCHAR YES/NO; it should return BOOLEAN just like everything else.

3) Presentation. I think MOF_ID and LINEAGE_ID would be easier on the eyes.

4) Confusion: displaying function return types as parameters will confuse most people. I think we should filter these out and add a separate DBA_FUNCTIONS view. (But keep functions in DBA_ROUTINES as well, just like we have both DBA_TABLES and DBA_STORED_TABLES.)

5) Inconsistency: Enumerations should all be uppercase. So, {PROCEDURE, FUNCTION} instead of {procedure, function}. And {LOCAL_TABLE, VIEW, and FOREIGN_TABLE} instead of {LocalTable, LocalView, and ForeignTable}.

6) Note: we're currently returning VARCHAR rather than TIMESTAMP for the creation/modification times, but that's because of FRG-172; I will take care of this one (so we should leave the specs as they are).