Thanks for explaining the _id meaning. I didn't know that that's how Rails associates tables.
> So, that leave us with the following design, when following Rails > conventions: > > Member: > id | member_number | first_name | last_name > > Invitation: > id | member_id | date > > class Member << ActiveRecord::Base > has_one :invitation > end > > class Invitation << ActiveRecord::Base > belongs_to :member > end However, in my case invitations.member_id needs to be invitations.member_number and it should reference the members.member_number. Here's why - we do a lot of MYSQL lookup and if we quickly want to glance thought the invitations table, we can look member_numbers and tell who received invitations. The field member_number (previously member_id) comes from a legacy database and to us it is a lot more "readable" than ID. Does that make sense? Should we have done something better? So the condition we're looking for here is: on members.member_number = invitation.member_number Should we just make member_number our primary key? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
