On Saturday 13 September 2008 08:25:10 am Ed Leafe wrote: > Understood. I developed a similar system for a medical records > company once. In that case, we didn't delete the old patient records; > we simply had a master patient record and a 1:1 patientInfo record; > when the information changed, we added a new patient info record, and > updated the pointer in the master table. Historical records, though, > pointed to the info record, not the master, as these were never changed.
Just a question on database design. Did you consider de-normalizing the invoice table such that it had the patient info in the header. IOW keeping the address, etc. that was available at the time of the transaction. > > I think that this whole exercise also shows how difficult it is to > create a framework that can handle all possible applications. So what > we've attempted to do is create a framework that handles the routine stuff > for you, and still make it easy to customize with the particular > requirements of each app you create. Please keep asking these sorts of > questions, as it makes us re-examine our previous design decisions, and > possibly improve the existing code +10 you and Paul have done a very good job of keeping Dabo flexible. In fact I see no reason the poster can't use Dabo to get the job done. Let's keep it flexible. -- John Fabiani _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/dabo-users Searchable Archives: http://leafe.com/archives/search/dabo-users This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
