Re: one to one revisited (has_own)

[prev] [thread] [next] [Date index for 2005/01/24]

From: William McKee
Subject: Re: one to one revisited (has_own)
Date: 15:39 on 24 Jan 2005

On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 10:16:58AM -0800, Peter Speltz wrote:
> Unless i'm missing something, I think a has_own relationship and
> constraints to might_have could be powerful and take a whole lot of
> guess work out of program logic. 

Peter,

I follow your thinking and have a project with similar needs for
multiple types of addresses and phone numbers. Right now, I have a mess
of code that uses triggers to populate temporary fields such as
billing_address, billing_city, billing_state, etc.

I like your proposed solution and could throw it into my current project
for testing if you have some code.

William

        -- 
        Knowmad Services Inc.
http://www.knowmad.com

(message missing)

one to one relationship revisited (has_own)
Peter Speltz 22:26 on 20 Jan 2005

Re: one to one relationship revisited (has_own)
Perrin Harkins 21:59 on 21 Jan 2005

Re: one to one relationship revisited (has_own)
Peter Speltz 05:11 on 22 Jan 2005

Re: one to one revisited (has_own)
Peter Speltz 18:16 on 22 Jan 2005

Re: one to one revisited (has_own)
William McKee 15:39 on 24 Jan 2005

Re: one to one revisited (has_own)
Peter Speltz 16:01 on 24 Jan 2005

Re: one to one revisited (has_own)
Andreas Fromm 08:19 on 25 Jan 2005

Re: one to one revisited (has_own)
Peter Speltz 19:34 on 25 Jan 2005

Selecting from a datetime field in MySQL
John Day 22:24 on 25 Jan 2005

Re: Selecting from a datetime field in MySQL
Perrin Harkins 22:29 on 25 Jan 2005

Re: one to one revisited (has_own)
Peter Speltz 23:24 on 26 Jan 2005

Re: one to one revisited (has_own)
Peter Speltz 17:40 on 01 Feb 2005

Re: one to one revisited (has_own)
Peter Speltz 08:23 on 25 Jan 2005