On Fri, Jul 13 2012, Dave Howorth <dhowo...@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Patrick Meidl wrote:
>
> > there are two reasons why you want to model the relationship city ->
> > state -> country in such a rigid (and maybe simplified) way:
> >
> > first, it helps you maintain data integrity. after all, you don't want
> > anybody to enter a store which is in Paris, Bavaria, UK, right?
>
> But you do want them to be able to enter Paris, France as well as Paris,
> Texas, USA. :-P
sure, but even if you model your data as I described, that would still
be possible: you would have two city entities called "Paris", each
linked to the respective state/country.
> And in Germany, the state (Land) is not part of the address, AFAIK, so
> Bavaria, or Freistaat Bayern, will never appear. And it's most
> definitely not right to have to write Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
> as an address. So I think some more flexibility is required, as others
> have suggested.
good point. the fact that in most countries (except the US) states are
irrelevant for address purposes is certainly a goog argument for not
linking cities to countries via states.
but as I said, I don't think there is one good way to represent this
data, it will always depend on your actual problem.
patrick
--
Patrick Meidl ........................ patr...@pantheon.at
Vienna, Austria ...................... http://gplus.to/pmeidl
_______________________________________________
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: http://www.grokbase.com/group/dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk
