On 1 August 2012 08:55, John Blaze <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you so much for your reply Colin. > > I believe you are spot on with your answer and what you suggest will > work and is the correct solution. > > For sake of my sanity though, is this solution more of a Rails > convention or have I been getting standard database design confused in > my head for a number of years? To my previous understanding I still see > it as one vehicle has one vehicle_type. Almost like vehicle_type is a > child table to the parent vehicle. Is this wrong thinking for all > database design or just Rails conventions?
vehicle_type cannot be like a child to the vehicle, because it is associated with multiple vehicles, how can it be a child of multiple parents? It is the other way round if you want to think of child and parent. A parent (vehicle type) has many children (vehicles), but a child (vehicle) belongs to a single parent. If you are thinking in conventional database design just remember that it is the table that includes the foreign key (vehicle.vehicle_type_id in this case) that must specify the belongs_to association. Colin > > -- > 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 https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
