Hi,
i've just installed the x2.6 version and i checked the tables.

I dont know why, for this new version, we cant get a name strategy for tables.

For modules : _mod_

For example, for the module publisher
_mod_publisher_categories
_mod_publisher_files
_mod_publisher_items
_mod_publisher_meta
_mod_publisher_mimetypes
_mod_publisher_rating


For extensions : _ext_

For example, for the avatar extension :
_ext_avatars_avatar
_ext_avatars_user_link


For systeme : _sys_

For example,
_sys_config
_sys_configoption
_sys_modules
_sys_online
_sys_session
...

Something along these lines is planned. This isn't a final product, lots of things are still in motion. Changing the names is not a huge effort. Making sure we maintain a clear upgrade path is. By changing the names now, it makes it much harder on me to keep track of the database differences, so the name changes will happen, but later on.

The actual naming will be different from what you propose.

Everything that creates tables is a module. Some are a subset we call extensions, but they share the exact same naming space as modules. One particular module, system, creates and maintains all of the core tables. But they are all modules, and they all have a module name.

The convention only needs to be modulename_tablename. Otherwise, we waste potentially valuable space for a redundant, and easily violated convention. For 2.6.0, we are only targeting MySQL, but in the near future, we will be adding full support for additional databases, and not all of those have the same generous sizes for entity names.

We will have nice paint on the walls, but I need to finish the drywall first.

ok, Thanks, Richard, for your answer.

I know that you work very hard on the 2.6 version (i follow your work on github).
alain91 works hard too !

I'm so impatient...