[Dbix-class] Relationship question/database structure
davidihnen at gmail.com
Mon Jan 10 19:22:14 GMT 2011
Agreed, You are a better expresser than I, apologies for clutzing ther
ideas. And I do like my julienned fries.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Rob Kinyon <rob.kinyon at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 13:54, David Ihnen <davidihnen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes. That was what i was typing basically when Mr Kinyon's message came
> > through. Quite right, sir, this is the sort of approach I would take as
> > well. Each column only has one type of data in it. There are more
> > for cross reference, but thats the hit you take for not putting multiple
> > columns in the notes table or as an alternative creating separate notes
> > tables for each type.
> Umm ... kinda. This isn't a "hit". It's the actual proper model of
> your data. There is an "order" and there is a "line_item" and each of
> them could have a note. In addition, a single note could be associated
> with both an order AND a line_item or with 3 orders and 2 line_items.
> This is considered a feature.
> Furthermore, by abstracting out the notes concept, you allow notes to
> have additional things, like attachments. Now, magically, all things
> that can have notes can also have uploaded attachments. Or users
> associated with them. Or dates. Or whatever else you have your notes
> work with.
> Many-to-many associations (they aren't relationships, properly) are an
> excellent way of making your database dance, sing, and make perfect
> julienne fries. I don't know why people freak out when they see them.
> List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class
> IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class
> SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/
> Searchable Archive:
Voice contact (562) 743-1807
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the DBIx-Class