> Better terms that are frequently used in relational literature and > examples are "parent" (referenced record) and "child" (referencing > record).
Problem with that is that it doesn't cleanly transfer to one-to-one relationships. Also, at least for me, parent-child carries the connotation that if the parent record dies, the child records should go away, too (i.e. true hierarchical ownership). I don't know whether that's just me or majority usage. I usually stick with to-one and to-many in my terminology to avoid these complications. > I'm open to alternative naming schemes, as this is something new > to the jOOQ API > ... > fetchArticle[List]ByPred() > fetchArticle[List]BySucc() So fetchArticle would be following a to-one-relationship, and fetchArticleList a to-many one? That would be fine by me. Maybe say Set instead of List. Sets can't contain duplicates, which is a defining property here. Some generators (notably Hibernate Tools reveng) use a plural, so that would be fetchArticle and fetchArticles. The resulting compactness is nice. However, generated plurals are often not what a programmer would expect (gory details in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plural ). In other words, this works only if manual intervention is easy or expected. Regards, Jo
