Could you be more specific? -David
On Mar 29, 2011, at 10:24 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > Why can't we use the pattern in the Data Model Resource book? It's simple and > it works. > > -Adrian > > > On 3/26/2011 9:57 AM, David E Jones wrote: >> On Mar 22, 2011, at 6:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>> - redesign following a more standard approach >>> PartyClassificationGroup/PartyClassificationType/PartyClassification >> Yes, this is another good one. This the pattern I had in mind: >> >> <entity entity-name="PartyClassification" >> package-name="mantle.party.party"> >> <field name="partyClassificationId" type="id" is-pk="true"/> >> <field name="classificationTypeEnumId" type="id"/> >> <field name="parentClassificationId" type="id"/> >> <field name="description" type="text-long"/> >> <relationship type="one" title="PartyClassificationType" >> related-entity-name="Enumeration"> >> <key-map field-name="classificationTypeEnumId"/> >> </relationship> >> <relationship type="one" title="Parent" >> related-entity-name="PartyClassification"> >> <key-map field-name="parentClassificationId"/> >> </relationship> >> </entity> >> <entity entity-name="PartyClassificationAppl" >> package-name="mantle.party.party"> >> <field name="partyId" type="id" is-pk="true"/> >> <field name="partyClassificationId" type="id" is-pk="true"/> >> <field name="fromDate" type="date-time" is-pk="true"/> >> <field name="thruDate" type="date-time"/> >> <relationship type="one" related-entity-name="Party"/> >> <relationship type="one" related-entity-name="PartyClassification"/> >> </entity> >>
