Re: model inherited object

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:45:15 GMT
Message-ID: <%Bwog.3328$pu3.80368@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

j.andersen.lv_at_gmail.com wrote:

> Bob Badour wrote:
>

>>j.andersen.lv_at_gmail.com wrote:

>
> --- snip ---
>
>

>>>Hi Phil,
>>>
>>>My suggestion is to use three tables! One for the objects, one for the
>>>attributes and one for the classifier defining the objects and
>>>attributes,
>>>as well as domain values, ie. OBJECTLIST, ATTRIBUTELIST, DOMAIN1LIST,
>>>DOMAIN2LIST, etc.
>>
>>And how do you propose to declare the integrity constraints to the dbms?
>>Simple foreign key references suddenly require cartwheels and backflips.
>>
>>I reiterate my earlier observation regarding ignorant cranks.

>
> Hi Bob,
>
> I do not care about that, because that is up to Phil! I only show Phil
> that it is possible to store an object, for example an address,
> depending on the type.
>
> Address can f.ex. be a street address (streetName, houseNumber,
> zipCode, cityName, etc.), or a postbox address (postboxNumber, zipCode,
> cityName), or a foreign address (plainAddress).
>
> By having the above tables, it is possible to store the address no
> matter what type of address it is.
>
> What would your own suggestion be for the solution?

Proper education and analysis of all the requirements. Received on Wed Jun 28 2006 - 09:45:15 CDT