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_at_mercury.downsfam.net>
>
> <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>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:07:50 -0400
Message-ID: <5st1kc.8gc.ln_at_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 meReceived on Thu Oct 07 2004 - 01:07:50 CEST