Re: OO and relation "impedance mismatch"

From: Kenneth Downs <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:07:50 -0400
Message-ID: <5st1kc.8gc.ln@mercury.downsfam.net>

mAsterdam wrote:

> Kenneth Downs wrote:
>
> ...
>

>> 3.  Enforce the arbitrary convention that a foreign key definition
>>     causes columns to be placed into the child table that correspond
>>     in name and type/precision/scale to the primary key of the
>>     parent.

>
> <delurk>
> Not the name.
> It would exclude mutliple foreign keys between
> two tables (ordinary? yes, very). You might want to use the role
> name for each of them.
> </delurk>

The current arbitrary feature for this case, which did not seem worth mentioning in that post, is that you can specify a suffix to affix to the columns in the child table. So for two foreign keys to the same table one is suffixed "_parent" and one suffixed "_child". This makes me really uneasy though, I keep thinking "salesperson1", "salesperson2", etc...

-- 
Kenneth Downs
Use first initial plus last name at last name plus literal "fam.net" to
email me

Received on Wed Oct 06 2004 - 18:07:50 CDT