Stephen Russell wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Paul McNett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I dunno about documentation. I'm very much a get-your-hands-dirty kind of >> guy. I was >> able to poke around connecting via odbc and issuing sql to find what I >> needed and >> sort it out. Yep, I could even post a non-balanced entry to G/L. ;) > ------------------------------------------- > > You think that the db should have that protection built in? That is a > business rule that could allow multiple transactions to define a full > GL Entry, from MPOV.
I wasn't really making a value judgment on that, just making the point that I could effectively do anything I wanted without relying on any vendor API or anything like that. However, MAS90 seriously crashed and burned when it tried to report on the unbalanced GL, so with great power comes great responsibility. Of course I was just playing with sample data. > It sucks that the overhead to enforce that type of rule in the db > could really slow things down. Demanding transactions to wrap the > whole process and all which tends to put a lock on the blasted table > and all. :) I don't tend to put anything, even referential integrity constraints, in the database. I like simple databases and smart rules at the biz layer. Perhaps a cronjob on the server to monitor database integrity to delete orphans and email me the actions taken, etc. Paul _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
