is that proper, to give '.dml' and '.ddl' extention to script filenames?

I wish to call those scripts from single '.sql' script, for example like
below:
@@ my_schema.ddl
@@ my_schema.sql
@@ my_schema.dml


thx4hlp

seems quite reasonable

fireball schreef:
> is that proper, to give '.dml' and '.ddl' extention to script filenames?
>
> I wish to call those scripts from single '.sql' script, for example like
> below:
> @@ my_schema.ddl
> @@ my_schema.sql
> @@ my_schema.dml
>
>
> thx4hlp
>
>

It is one way, yes. I'm not to judge whether it's
proper. Declare it standard, and you're done
I would use the .sql for the "main" routine - the one
calling the other two.
--
Regards,
Frank van Bortel

Top-posting is one way to shut me up...

fireball wrote:
> is that proper, to give '.dml' and '.ddl' extention to script filenames?
>
> I wish to call those scripts from single '.sql' script, for example like
> below:
> @@ my_schema.ddl
> @@ my_schema.sql
> @@ my_schema.dml
>
>
> thx4hlp

It depends whether you are working on a system that ascribes meaning to
the extension. And even on systems that don't, you never know when
..dml might mean something other than a SQL script...

$ find / -name "*.dml" 2>/dev/null|wc -l
7537

Especially troubling when you install something new and it conflicts
with your local standards.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/t...ube-deals.html