Ð ÐÐÐ, 21.06.2004, Ð 06:57, Josh Berkus ÐÐÑÐÑ: > Markus, > > > I have objects in my database, and they have an object id generated with > > a sequence. Then I have object versions. The ids of object versions need > > to be unique only within one object id. But for simplicity they're > > generated with a sequence, too. > > > > Now I want to reference an object version. I can use just the object > > version id, because it "happens" to be globally unique. Conceptually > > though, I should use the object's id and its version's id. > > > > Now redundancy is Not Goodâ, so I wonder which way is the Right Oneâ. > > > > Well, conceptually, you should have generated a numerical version id for each > object version which would have told you the sequence in which that version > was created, i.e. version #1 of object 23421, version #2 of object 23421, > etc. This can be automated a number of ways, although it does require > locking the object during a version save. > > The problem with the setup you have now is that you have an Object ID, which > doesn't intrinsically mean anything, and an Object Version ID, which also > doesn't tell you anything about the object or the version. If you want to > keep information about which "edition" of an object this particular > object-version is, you'll have to add a column -- which will then make the > object-version id redundant, since the table will then have two keys. > > That's "the Right Oneâ"
Thanks. That really did provide the neccessary insight. -- Markus Bertheau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
