Re: [binarycloud-dev] entity definition format

[John P. C. <jp...@jp...>]

> Actually, along these lines: does anyone have any qualms about making this
> assumption?:
> 
>     -Entity Field names must correspond exactly to table field names (we
> could get rid of the schema map if we did this)

The only problem with this is that the schema fields are the "exposed" fields.
A name like userreckey is a reasonable db field name, but isn't a great exposed
field name.  Also I may have two fields that map to a single db field.  I may
have, for example, ZIPCODE and ZIPCODE_EXTENDED that end up being concatenated
and stored in the db.  

Or in the case I gave earlier with entities mapping to multiple records in the
same table.  I may have USERPREF1 and USERPREF2 that get translated to two
records in the preference table by ModuleSetupManager.

There's more, but I think that gets the point across.

jpc