On 4/3/13, Peter Koželj <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] > > Technology wise, I would vote for solution that is not tied to particular > relation type on the database > and application layer (on the other hand, some per relation type UX > optimizations are probably desired). Getting from system-only provided > relation types to user-defined ones is then a small step. >
fwiw , I agree . Fact is that generic DB design also implies (at least sometimes) explicit reference integrity and constraint checking . Another similar reasoning applies in the opposite direction . We'd have to find the exact point in-between by putting both flexibility and semantics side-by-side ;) -- Regards, Olemis.
