On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Ah I understand now, thank you.
Well, this means that this entity as is doesn't work for the use
case I want to implement ("defining groups of gl accounts, where a
gl account could be in more than one group, of the same group type").
That sounds like a design based on a use case. For what you want to
support, which actor is trying to do what?
And yes, for that particular design it sounds like it explicitly
differs from what the current GlAccountGroup stuff.
-David
I see two possible options:
1) add the glAccountGroupId to the pk of the GlAccountGroupMember or
2) create a new entity... but what name should we use? And: is it ok
to define another new entity to define group membership for
GlAccountGroup?
Jacopo
On Jul 22, 2009, at 11:37 PM, David E Jones wrote:
Is that an error or just a different design?
The way the entity is setup constrains the group membership to one
GlAccountGroup per GlAccountGroupType for each GlAccount. In other
words, it is setup so that if you have a GlAccount and the desired
GlAccountGroupType you can find out which group it is in.
Why to do that might be more clear based on the initial "use case"
for this as shown in the demo data for it (ie the tax form stuff).
-David
On Jul 22, 2009, at 6:53 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
I think there is an error in the entity definition for the
GlAccountGroupMember, its primary key is defined as:
glAccountId
glAccountGroupTypeId
instead of:
glAccountId
glAccountGroupId
I really think that the field should be removed from the pk but
also from the entity; it doesn't make sense to me to have it this
entity since it is already in the GlAccountGroup entity.
Any comments/objections?
Jacopo
