On 10/10/13 01:19 +0200, Cédric Krier wrote: > > > - I will add a start_date and end_date on party.relation with an > > > active Function field that deactivate the relation if current is > > > out of the limit. > > > > Nice idea. > > > > > - I'm wondering if party.relation.type should not simply have an > > > option link to the reverse party.relation.type > > > > I prefer the current design because it is easier to configure. > > I don't like it because it rely on context and give a sens to the > relation. But the sens of the relation is already defined in > party.relation with the from-to
There is just a small issue with this design it is that it duplicates
the link between types. But I think it is not a big deal because it is
just configuration part and I think there is no solution in relational
world for this.
After some talk with Bertrand, he was proposing to not use a query for
the relation table but to really create the reverse relation.
This design as some advantage:
- simple concept
- could enforce unique constraint (but I don't think such constraint
will be good)
But it has also some disavantage:
- more work at creation
- could have creation conflict
- make reverse relation static (with other design if the reverse
relation type is changed, it applied on all relation
out-of-the-box)
- will require synchronisation between start/end date (or any other
attributes)
So I still think the reverse query table is a better choice.
If we agree I will update the wiki according.
--
Cédric Krier
B2CK SPRL
Rue de Rotterdam, 4
4000 Liège
Belgium
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59
Email/Jabber: [email protected]
Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
pgp0z1gDG625D.pgp
Description: PGP signature
