Re: OO and relation "impedance mismatch"
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:45:52 +0200
Message-ID: <4164759e$0$78749$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
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> Received on Thu Oct 07 2004 - 00:45:52 CEST
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:45:52 +0200
Message-ID: <4164759e$0$78749$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
> 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> Received on Thu Oct 07 2004 - 00:45:52 CEST