Hi,
Your second option seems to be a better one. This is because when
somebody wants to seacrh for articles in the newsletter, the best
assumption for us designers would be that they want to read the current
one. If they want older ones they may expect to wait for little longer.
so seperating them makes sense to me.
Rajan
In article <896vno$cfp$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com>,
foobar71_at_my-deja.com wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Help me settle this once and for all. (a colleague and myself are
> debating this)
>
> If you were designing tables to handle the following, how would you
> do it?
>
> We want to create tables to track a newsletter, and the articles in
> the newsletter. We also want to track any revisions on the article
> table.
>
> i.e.... current newsletter is newsletter volume 5 article 1 revision 2
> we also want to be able to pull newsletter volume 5 article 1 revision
> 1 (the original cut of the article)
>
> Would you put the revision data in the article table, or create
> a revision table to handle the "old" articles, and why?
>
> Store article revisions in artlcle table:
>
> Parent table:
> name Newsletter
> col1 newsletter_id
> col2 created_by
> col3 created_on
>
> Child table:
> name Newsletter_articles
> col1 newsletter_id
> col2 article_id
> col3 article_text
> col4 revision_number
>
> Store article revisions in article revison table:
>
> Parent table:
> name Newsletter
> col1 newsletter_id
> col2 created_by
> col3 created_on
>
> Child table:
> name Newsletter_articles
> col1 newsletter_id
> col2 article_id
> col3 article_text
>
> Child table:
> name Newsletter_revision
> col1 newsletter_id
> col2 article_id
> col3 revision_id
> col4 revision_text
>
> TIA,
> Foo
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Received on Sat Feb 26 2000 - 08:47:59 CST
