Re: OO and relation "impedance mismatch"

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 02:36:17 +0200
Message-ID: <41648f7f$0$37789$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>

Kenneth Downs wrote:

> 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...

While I was thinking account_from, account_to, account_provision, account_costs, etc. Received on Wed Oct 06 2004 - 19:36:17 CDT