Re: model inherited object

> 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.

and I appreciate it - I like these groups because they are a discussion area. Not all ideas are a solution but they might trigger another idea etc etc.

thanks, if it's not too late

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?
>
> Best wishes,
> John, Latvia
Received on Thu Jul 27 2006 - 20:49:12 CEST