Huh?
Chris Howe wrote:
It may apply to all payment methods (I'm not really
sure that it applies to all current payment methods,
much less ALL that may exist), but it does not
describe the payment method. It describes the payment
method's child so it should go in the entity that it
is describing.
Following through with the approach of putting the
field in PaymentMethod entity puts you in the position
of modifying the data to fit the data model instead of
keeping the data model flexible enough to fit the
data.
--- Si Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I disagree. This is a descriptive note that applies
to all
PaymentMethods so why put it in the child entities.
If you had a
parent class which had a field that all inherited
classes should
have, shouldn't be in the parent class?
On Jun 28, 2006, at 1:35 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
"Bank A general account" does not describe the
PaymentMethod, it describes the credit card, the
company account, the gift card, etc so that field
should go on the CreditCard, etc entity. Now if
you're using it as an alias for the Payment
Method,
then you should create a PaymentMethodAttribute
entity
and make a relationship between the two.
On a side note. I've noticed a couple of fields
getting added onto entities in svn that are quick
fixes to gain functionality but cause a loss of
the
entity's meaning. PaymentMethod.partyId is one
that
quickly comes to mind.
--- Si Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi everybody.
What do you think of adding a field
"paymentMethodName" to
PaymentMethod, so a company can identify that
method
A is "Bank A
general account", etc. etc.
Si
