tables renaming

[tombaeyens]

In order to better indicate which category the different tables are in, I propose following table renames:

ACT_ID_GROUP          –> ACT_ID_GROUP
ACT_ID_MEMBERSHIP     –> ACT_ID_MEMBERSHIP
ACT_ID_USER           –> ACT_ID_USER
ACT_H_PROCINST        –> ACT_HS_PROC_INST
ACT_H_ACTINST         –> ACT_HS_ACT_INST
ACT_PROPERTY          –> ACT_MG_PROPERTY
ACT_DEPLOYMENT        –> ACT_RP_DEPLOYMENT
ACT_PROCESSDEFINITION –> ACT_RP_PROC_DEF
ACT_BYTEARRAY         –> ACT_RT_BYTEARRAY
ACT_EXECUTION         –> ACT_RT_EXECUTION
ACT_JOB               –> ACT_RT_JOB
ACT_TASK              –> ACT_RT_TASK
ACT_TASKINVOLVEMENT   –> ACT_RT_TASK_IVMNT
ACT_VARIABLE          –> ACT_RT_VARIABLE‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍

ACT_ID_XXX –> tables for the identity component
ACT_HS_XXX –> tables for the history component
ACT_MG_XXX –> tables for the management component  (i'm unsure about this one, but couldn't find a better name)
ACT_RP_XXX –> tables containing the static repository data
ACT_RT_XXX –> tables containing the dynamic runtime data

any objections or thoughts?

[jbarrez]

I agree, now is the time to get the table names consistent.

How will we cope with the alpha4->beta1 migration? None ? Or create a small DDL with the changes ?
Imo, since it is an alpha4, we should not invest time in it.

[tombaeyens]

i agree.  no compatibility is guaranteed until GA.

[falko_menge]

Why do all field names have an underscore at the end?

[tombaeyens]

Why do all field names have an underscore at the end?

That's to prevent name clashes with DB reserved words.  (E.g. Some db has 'start' as a reserved word) Every DB has a different set of reserved words.  Instead of fixing such a problem each time, we decided (long time ago at jbpm) to always postfix it with underscore.  Since then we don't have the nameclash problem any more.