Hi Denver, > > the application built might be more vulnarable to data accidents... > I don't see how. Someone accidentally updating all the next step codes with a query for example. Of course there will be backups and all others, but even thinking about it makes me feel bad :)
> Mine, by storing the ApprovalType NextStep method with the ApprovalType itself, > does not have this problem. Yes, I was talking about my solution... Regards, Teoman "Denver Braughler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Teoman Haliloglu wrote: > > Good idea... I don't have an idea how much overhead keeping uncompiled code > > in the database and running it with indirection will bring though. > > Negligible? > > The code is a single methodname or tag^routine. > That's negligible. You don't even need think about it again. > > > accidental manipulation of data would cause serious problems. > That's almost universally true. :) > > > As you stated and proposed this solution is keeping some "classes" > > (which are different approval types) in the database (codes and/or > > approval type hierarchy) instead of compiling all of the approval > > types as independent classes. > I couldn't imagine doing the latter. > > > the application built might be more vulnarable to data accidents... > I don't see how. > > > I'll need to create exactly the same data if I want to reuse the code on > > another sytem. > That is untrue. > Actually, your design with hardcoded ApprovalTypes suffers from this problem. > > Mine, by storing the ApprovalType NextStep method with the ApprovalType itself, > does not have this problem.
