New to SQL Server

I am new to sql server, mostly work with an other product build by a company
in california. We can call it "company O"
We had a application written for our company. The version of SQL Server is
2000. They created all the objects owned by dbo. When I asked why, I was
told this is what Microsoft recommends. My question is why should the
objects be owned by dbo and not use the a model like
schema/username.objectname
Can some one explain why use the dbo as the owner of the objects in a
database vrs have a schema and then grant permissions on the objects in the
schema?In SQL Server 2000, schemas don't work that way. Having everything owned by
dbo makes it much easier to manage. SQL Server 2005 properly implements
schemas such that what you're talking about does make sense.
Adam Machanic
Pro SQL Server 2005, available now
http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=457
--
"jbwest77" <jbwest77@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1C71EE4D-A6F0-42BE-A48E-693830152596@.microsoft.com...
>I am new to sql server, mostly work with an other product build by a
>company
> in california. We can call it "company O"
> We had a application written for our company. The version of SQL Server
> is
> 2000. They created all the objects owned by dbo. When I asked why, I was
> told this is what Microsoft recommends. My question is why should the
> objects be owned by dbo and not use the a model like
> schema/username.objectname
> Can some one explain why use the dbo as the owner of the objects in a
> database vrs have a schema and then grant permissions on the objects in
> the
> schema?|||On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:48:01 -0800, "jbwest77"
<jbwest77@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>I am new to sql server, mostly work with an other product build by a company
>in california. We can call it "company O"
>We had a application written for our company. The version of SQL Server is
>2000. They created all the objects owned by dbo. When I asked why, I was
>told this is what Microsoft recommends. My question is why should the
>objects be owned by dbo and not use the a model like
>schema/username.objectname
>Can some one explain why use the dbo as the owner of the objects in a
>database vrs have a schema and then grant permissions on the objects in the
>schema?
It's just always been that way, and various tools and defaults are
very awkward if you try to use ownership other than dbo.
If things are finally better in Yukon, then we'll just have to break
old habits!
So, I'd say that at least on this issue, so far I wouldn't hold it
against your developers.
J.|||In SQL Server 2000 you can implement the schema/username.objectname that you
mentioned, more exactly the username. You can create a user, like finance,
and give ownership of the objects to that user. We have several applications
like that and we do not have any problem.
If you want to implement schemas Oracle-style then we have SQL Server 2005.
Ben Nevarez
"jbwest77" <jbwest77@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1C71EE4D-A6F0-42BE-A48E-693830152596@.microsoft.com...
>I am new to sql server, mostly work with an other product build by a
>company
> in california. We can call it "company O"
> We had a application written for our company. The version of SQL Server
> is
> 2000. They created all the objects owned by dbo. When I asked why, I was
> told this is what Microsoft recommends. My question is why should the
> objects be owned by dbo and not use the a model like
> schema/username.objectname
> Can some one explain why use the dbo as the owner of the objects in a
> database vrs have a schema and then grant permissions on the objects in
> the
> schema?|||Thanks for the input.
"Ben Nevarez" wrote:
> In SQL Server 2000 you can implement the schema/username.objectname that you
> mentioned, more exactly the username. You can create a user, like finance,
> and give ownership of the objects to that user. We have several applications
> like that and we do not have any problem.
> If you want to implement schemas Oracle-style then we have SQL Server 2005.
> Ben Nevarez
>
> "jbwest77" <jbwest77@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1C71EE4D-A6F0-42BE-A48E-693830152596@.microsoft.com...
> >I am new to sql server, mostly work with an other product build by a
> >company
> > in california. We can call it "company O"
> >
> > We had a application written for our company. The version of SQL Server
> > is
> > 2000. They created all the objects owned by dbo. When I asked why, I was
> > told this is what Microsoft recommends. My question is why should the
> > objects be owned by dbo and not use the a model like
> > schema/username.objectname
> > Can some one explain why use the dbo as the owner of the objects in a
> > database vrs have a schema and then grant permissions on the objects in
> > the
> > schema?
>
>