Is there some way to disable this “feature”? Our DBA would be most grateful. 
It seems like it would make more sense to have separate functions for creating/editing content editors versus creating/editing database tables. We are using version 6.5.2.
The short answer is that no, there is no way to change this.
Thanks for the quick reply. Do you mind if I ask a few more related questions?
[ol]
[li]Is there any way to have Workbench not rename our tables and/or fields in all UPPERCASE? Our standard is to use CamelBack, it would be nice if we didn’t have to go back and rename everything.
[/li][li]Is there any way to disable the automatic creation of a backup copy of the table? We have a few tables that are very large and we really don’t want 2 copies of those tables
[/li][li]When working on a Content Editor in “Content Design” are there plans to have the local fields made available via a dropdownlist like they used to be in the 5.x version?
[/li][li]Just curious and not trying to be a trouble maker but why was it decided that the content editor and dba roles be rolled into a single function?[/ol]
[/li]
Thanks again!
Basically, the workbench is what it is, and you can’t do very much to change it’s behavior.
We made a decision to make the workbench as “friendly” as possible, and to hide as much of the database functionality as we could from the users.
Given that many of our customers don’t have DBAs, this allows them to create and edit content types without having to know too much about the internals.
Of course, it means that some customers who want to lock down the database will be less happy.
There are no plans to change any of these things in the next release (6.6).
Dave
Thanks Dave,
I guess I should take this up on the Ideas and Features Discussion area. I appreciate what you are saying but I do think that there is probably a better way for some of these issues to be addressed without “dumbing down” the workbench.
Danny, I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that basically your DBA wishes there were no Content Design tab in the Workbench? Modifying tables seems to be the point of that tab.
No not at all. We have no problem with having the ability to build or modify tables within the Workbench. Our DBA does quite a bit more with our tables than the Workbench allows so he does all of his work with other tools and then we make changes to our editors via Content Design. We run into problems when he is required to add fields and then we go back into Content Design to update the editors (e.g. fields and tables get renamed using all UPPERCASE when our standard is to use CamelBack, among other issues). We also don’t care to have backup copies of tables made when we update an editor as some of our tables are very large. It just seems like it would be more practical to have separate tabs for DBA functions vs changes to the editors.