>Any comments on this naming scheme. I have been told that this is an OLD method and that the "NEW" thinking is to use :
>
>TRANSACTION
>id I(4)
>code c(10)
>productid I(4)
>clientid I(4)
>exported L(1)

You're going to get lots of differing opinions on this.

I prefer the method above-

I don't feel that you need to add a table prefix to each field because you know what table you're pulling from when you're querying the database, and once the field is in the result set, it's source table is irrelevant, and so your extra 3 characters just become baggage.

What's more, if you try to keep your field names under 10 characters, this practice robs you of 3 characters that could otherwise be used for being descriptive.