2013/10/11 Cédric Krier <[email protected]>: > 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.
Bertrand's suggestion is what Robin implemented but I agree it is better to use a query. -- Albert Cervera i Areny Consultor funcional Tel. 93 553 18 03 @albertnan www.NaN-tic.com
