db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Laura Stewart" <scotsmat...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Long name of built-in system procedure causes doc problems
Date Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:09:58 GMT
I understand, and because of that, I would prefer to change the procedure name.
One question to ask the community as how often are these particular
procedures invoked by users?

If you look at the Ref Guide PDF, every occasion where these long
names are used, they bleed outside the margins or in some cases off
the entire page.  That is especially true for section titles and the
Table of Contents.

Lesson learned for the future... when we implement another built in
procedure, we need to discuss the name to ensure that it makes sense
and is not too long :-)


On 3/6/07, Mike Matrigali <mikem_app@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> If you have to, to get it work then go ahead.  But do note that I have
> gotten multiple questions about "missing" system procedures when the
> answer was that the user left off the SYSCS_UTIL. -- this is why I
> prefer all documentation to have the complete reference.  I know it
> is likely that a paragraph will explain the need for the complete name -
> but users will pick and choose paragraphs/examples and if one usage
> is wrong - someone will use it.
>
>
> Suresh Thalamati wrote:
> > Laura Stewart wrote:
> >
> >> Okay, is it acceptable in places where we are only discussing the
> >> procedure to omit the SYSCS_UTIL. portion of the name?
> >> Clearly in examples that users might copy/paste we would use the full
> >> name.
> >>
> >
> > In the description of procedures it might be ok to omit the
> > "SYSCS_UTIL." part , as you mention,  it should not be omitted in
> > the title/syntax/examples.
> >
> >
> > -suresh
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
Laura Stewart

Mime
View raw message