Larry,
Awesome. Thanx.
Do you know if the Poseidon UML Community version will export an XMI 1.1
file?
~G~
If not any recommendations for a OSS and/or Free UML App?
From what I understand Brian developed the app using Poseidon UML. So yes I
assume it would work.
As for UML reccomendations,
as an extra helper i would say if you are migrating from procedural to OO i
would suggest MG, as it is fantastic and forces you down an OO route.
i havent done too much research on the others but when i was deciding, i posted
a message on this forum and was told that MG is def more OO than
All fine point there Gerald, thank you. I've looked at Illudium in the
past and plan on doing so again for this project. Right now though I'm
trying to map out all my classes in UML to make sure that I have it
together conceptually, then move to the actual coding part. The
database already exists
Larry,
Awesome. Thanx.
Do you know if the Poseidon UML Community version will export an XMI 1.1
file?
~G~
If not any recommendations for a OSS and/or Free UML App?
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Larry Lyons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All fine point there Gerald, thank you. I've looked at
All fine point there Gerald, thank you. I've looked at Illudium in the
past and plan on doing so again for this project. Right now though I'm
trying to map out all my classes in UML to make sure that I have it
together conceptually, then move to the actual coding part. The
database already exists
Thanks for this advice Mike. I'd forgotten about the cfcdev mailing
list, I'll go sign up for that now. Fortunately for me, this site is
not a high traffic site. These are back end business process tools, so
I'm really refactoring to increase the sensibility and maintainability
of the code. I will
I'm planning on using one of the MVC frameworks (probably MG, but I'll
look at Mach ii and OO Fusebox again as well) for a seperate project
that can be built from the ground up. This project has enough quirks
(like an existing url rewriter scheme) that I'd prefer not to try and
shoehorn in a whole
Just to make sure you're aware of its existence, I would suggest taking a
look at ColdBox as well.
http://www.coldboxframework.com/
http://www.12robots.com/index.cfm/2008/9/21/Building-an-Application-with-ColdBox-and-ColdSpring--Part-1
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
One thing I would watch out for is concept overload. I think the single most
difficult thing for me was sifting the VAST amounts of information. One of
the problems I ran into was finding tutes and examples that did *one thing
only* and not mixing concepts like using MachII and ColdSpring
Agreed, this is something I ran into before and is definitely
something that often haunts me into indecision. That is one of the
reasons I'm not doing a framework right now. I figure if I can
abstract out my functionality into a set of classes and get those
classes implemented as cfc's, I'll have
I'm migrating the backend portion of an application from a procedural
set of code to a cfc-based and hopefully more OO oriented design. For
this first go around I won't be using any of the MVC frameworks (the
front end is already written on this project) and I don't plan on
using any of the ORM's
This is a very big topic and you might get a more in-depth response if
you posted your question on the cfcdev list, which focuses on CFCs and
OOP.
A word of caution though if you are approaching OOP for the first time
is that CF isn't an ideal OOP language. Your rewrite might end up
doing more
i know you said you are not using frameworks but i recently done exactly what
you are doing (migrating procedural to OO) and tore my hair out not
understanding best practice etc..., as i suspect you are going through now
then someone on this forum told me to look into ModelGlue and ColdSpring
Your rewrite might end up doing more harm than good if you aren't careful,
That reminds me of a comment by Sean Corfield on the alagad blog:
And a bad OO design will punish you more than any bad procedural design
you've ever conceived.
.
Thanks
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Dominic Watson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 11:24 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DB Design question
I'd probably re-think your main tables first. It looks like these
should be incorporated into one table
with
more confidence. If you have to switch models, then switch.
Good luck.
Thanks
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Dominic Watson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 11:24 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DB Design question
I'd probably re-think your main
I'm just designing a database and have stumbled on a situation where I am
torn between approaches and I'd like some experienced input ;)
The situation involves the following tables:
Tables:
--
* User
* Show
* Musical Number
* CreativePerson (composers, lyricists, etc)
* Actor
What I
Tables:
--
* User
* Show
* Musical Number
* CreativePerson (composers, lyricists, etc)
* Actor
I'd probably re-think your main tables first.
It looks like these should be incorporated into one table because shows, mus
numbers, etc all describe one thing.
tblEntertainmentItems for
Oops, I had one too many before posting that answer.
the linking table would have the userID tied to it. not the entTypeID
That way, each user could have n items tied to them. it could be 10, 20, 5,
whatever...
Will
~|
I'm just designing a database and have stumbled on a situation where I am
torn between approaches and I'd like some experienced input ;)
The situation involves the following tables:
Tables:
--
* User
* Show
* Musical Number
* CreativePerson (composers, lyricists, etc)
* Actor
What I
I'd probably re-think your main tables first. It looks like these should
be incorporated into one table because shows, mus numbers, etc all describe
one thing.
I simplified my descripition as the relationships are reasonably involved
and it's an ass to describe dbs in text! The tables must
]
To: CF-Talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Sent: 1/10/2008 5:28 PM
Subject: OT: DB Design question
I'm just designing a database and have stumbled on a situation where I am
torn between approaches and I'd like some experienced input ;)
The situation involves the following tables:
Tables
I am assuming that you mean that a user can create a top10 list or any or
all of the other tables.
Yes exactly - at first I had it exactly this way, a single extra join table
per entity that was to contain the user's top items. It then dawned on me
that this was limited to describing only one
I think this is a bit of an OOD type question. I'm developing a project for
managing structured news content that is currently done with the separate tools
for different type of news.
I've created a front end I am fairly happy with that allows me to define the
structure of each of the news
Ian,
I hope I'm understanding you correctly; but I'm assuming you mean that the
form data, taken together, essentially constitutes a record in your data
source. If so, I think you want to use a transfer object that receives and
carries that data along.
While I'm not educated enough to give you a
, formfieldID, answer)
Then you can build your form dynamically from this data.
Russ
-Original Message-
From: Doug Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 25 November 2006 02:02
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Design question (Database etc)
Jon,
I think I may have confused the subject
Btw there are apps already out there both of these, auctionbuilder and
classifieds)
Russ
-Original Message-
From: Doug Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 25 November 2006 04:37
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Design question (Database etc)
Thanks for the insight Patrick. What I am
Do you know of a site that is using auctionBuilder? I tried looking for a
demo, but I guess they do not have one.
Doug B.
- Original Message -
From: Snake [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 5:42 AM
Subject: RE: Design question
I am in the process of re-designing a classifieds system and was just wondering
a few things. Currently there is just one standard for to fill out for the ads.
I am thinking of designing it to where it is more useful. I would like to make
the form as dynamic as possible by having different
brain
dead.
- Original Message -
From: Doug Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 5:17 PM
Subject: Design question (Database etc)
I am in the process of re-designing a classifieds system and was just
wondering a few things
brain
dead.
- Original Message -
From: Doug Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 5:17 PM
Subject: Design question (Database etc)
I am in the process of re-designing a classifieds system and was just
wondering a few things
I think you just need a category lookup table.
advertID
CategoryID
Russ
-Original Message-
From: Doug Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 25 November 2006 00:18
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Design question (Database etc)
I am in the process of re-designing a classifieds system and was just
Message -
From: Jon Clausen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: Design question (Database etc)
Doug,
Just a suggestion, but, if you need have multiple categories per
item, maybe instead add a category and secondary
://acoderslife.com
-Original Message-
From: Doug Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 7:18 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Design question (Database etc)
I am in the process of re-designing a classifieds system and was just
wondering a few things. Currently there is just one
You should be able to pull it off with three tables. The first one
defines the categories.
Categories
---
CategoryID (PK)
Name
Description
etc.
The next one defines what fields are associated with each category.
CategoryFields
--
FieldID (PK)
CategoryID (FK -
Now that I've answered your question, let me throw in an opinion. If
you're building a generic classified system, you might be better off
with category, description and maybe a couple fields for contact
information. That seems to have worked for craigslist.
Patrick
On 11/24/06, Doug Brown
general in nature. Maybe that will help me in my task at
hand.
Regards,
Doug B.
- Original Message -
From: Patrick McElhaney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: Design question (Database etc)
Now that I've
: Doug Boude (rhymes with 'loud') [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: Database design question
- Original Message -
From: Michael E. Carluen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Sent: Monday
As someone previously stated, the major drawback to this
design is that you can only have one parent for each item. If you
need
an item to have more than one parent, you would have to develop a two
table design.
I can't imagine a scenario where I would need to have a single child
have
two
Ok, I think I am understanding. So are you saying that I will need
another
table if this is the case? Say I have antiques and collectible and it
has
a
sub_category of furniture. Since not all furniture is antique or
collectible
would that require another table?
Exactly. Instead of defining
On my classifieds database it will have...
categories and corresponding sub_categories and corresponding
sub_sub_categories. How would you design the table names and relationships to
avoid confusion? Kinda new to database design!!
IE:
Antiques-category
antique furniture - sub_category
hutches
PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 2:16 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Database design question
On my classifieds database it will have...
categories and corresponding sub_categories and corresponding
sub_sub_categories. How would you design the table names and relationships
to avoid confusion? Kinda new
- other databases, not
so much)
What you do absolutely want to avoid is having separate category, sub
category, sub-sub category, etc. tables.
Doug B.
-Original Message-
From: Doug Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 2:16 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Database design
, NAME: DeSoto, PARENT_ID: 3
Hope that makes sense, Doug.
Michael
-Original Message-
From: Doug Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 11:16 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Database design question
On my classifieds database it will have...
categories
for the help again.
- Original Message -
From: Doug Bezona [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 12:43 PM
Subject: RE: Database design question
This is going to be a bit tricky to explain without diagrams, but I'll
try and hope it's
PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 12:53 PM
Subject: RE: Database design question
Doug, yYou can actually use a single table for that. One way is to create
a
field that serves as a parent_id.
Example:
ID: 1, NAME: Antiques and Vintages, PARENT_ID: 0
ID: 2
: Doug Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 3:26 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Database design question
Thanks michael, but if I do it that way, will I not have hundreds of
tables?
I currently have about 24 categories and each category has prob 10-50
sub_categories and then each
: Database design question
Doug thanks for the help. By the way I am Doug too.
Right now I have this
[categories]
cat_id
category
[sub_categories]
sub_cat_id
cat_id [FK sub_categories_categories]
sub_categories
I am also going to be needing to add a table for the sub_categories
No, only one table. I believe Doug Bezona and I are suggesting an identical
approach (so you now have a consensus solution).
-Original Message-
From: Doug Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 12:26 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Database design question
-
From: Doug Bezona [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 12:43 PM
Subject: RE: Database design question
This is going to be a bit tricky to explain without diagrams, but I'll
try and hope it's reasonably clear.
One approach is use a single category
relationships.
two more cents for the pot.
Hope that clears things up a bit.
Rich Kroll
-Original Message-
From: Doug Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 3:26 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Database design question
Thanks michael, but if I do it that way, will I
I am creating a classifieds e-commerce site and was wondering...I have the
following columns that need to be in the database, and was wondering if you
would split them up into seperate tables. I am thinking no, but not sure.
I was considering letting customers place more than one ad at
In theory joining cross databases is not supported in the SQL
standard. Therefore not every dbms will implement it, or they
will require you to use clumsy workarounds.
I assume this goes for cross-server queries as well (such as linked servers
in SQL Server)?
I find it hard to see the
I do use a database link on my current project to another server
sitting in the same server room. Unfortunately the columns that we
need to query on are not indexed on that box and to pull out records
takes for ever. If it did not it would be nice to just write the
queries to join our tables off
Ben Rogers wrote:
I assume this goes for cross-server queries as well (such as linked servers
in SQL Server)?
Of course implementations differ, but in general I consider
cross-database and cross-server queries something you use because
you *have* to, not because you *want* to.
Well,
But what if you need read/write access? How transactional would
that be?
In the SAP example cited, write access is not allowed. By that, I mean that
granting users (besides those used by the SAP/R3 system) write access to the
database voids your support contract. How's that for side stepping
Scott Mulholland wrote:
In theory is there any downside to joining cross database.
In theory joining cross databases is not supported in the SQL
standard. Therefore not every dbms will implement it, or they
will require you to use clumsy workarounds.
I find it hard to see the advantages when
and replace the _ with .. Kind of a hack, but
I guess it works.
M!ke
-Original Message-
From: Scott Mulholland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 9:03 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Database design question
In theory is there any downside to joining cross database. I'm using
Oops. I meant to say there are many reasons why you _can't_ limit
everything to a single database.
-Original Message-
From: Dawson, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 9:46 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Database design question
I do it all the time, but I
In theory is there any downside to joining cross database. I'm using
sql server and was considering having my user data in one database and
my content data in an other. In some cases I would need to do something
like this as an example:
2 databases (MS SQL Server for arguments sake): USERS and
In reality would you not tend to only need to read the user data at
login time and then cache whatever user data is required (in a
persistant scope of some type) so that your example would become
select a.title, u.firstname, u.lastname
from articles a
WHERE a.insertby = #request.account_id#
by a specific user. Am I misinterpretting it?
-Original Message-
From: Michael Traher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 10:21 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Database design question
In reality would you not tend to only need to read the user data at
login time
In reality would you not tend to only need to read the
user data at
login time and then cache whatever user data is required
(in a
persistant scope of some type) so that your example would
become
Not necessarily... if there is an administrative tool to manage users,
it might need to
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Database design question
In reality would you not tend to only need to read the user data at
login time and then cache whatever user data is required (in a
persistant scope of some type) so that your example would become
select a.title, u.firstname, u.lastname
from
If you had multiple projects that all had their own databases but need
a central database for user authentication. We had something like
this years ago when I was working for the University. The IT
department did finally get a LDAP solution working correctly and that
is when we switched to that
seperated for organization I can't find any benefit to having
them be 2 databases.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Traher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 11:22 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Database design question
Well if you need multiple users data - again
Hi,
I'm in the process of re-designing a webstore app. One of the features
built into the (CF5) app is the ability to share an order. The 'sharees'
gain full access and can add /or delete items from the cart. I ensured
concurrency by 'locking' the order if any user (in the share list) is
What is the proper, or preferred way of doing the following:
I have three tables:
T1 - PK A
T2 - PK B
T3 - PK AB (compound)
Is it acceptable to add column C to T3 and make that the PK, and then add a
unique constraint to AB? This would ease writing in writing of the WHERE
clauses when
On Mar 18, 2004, at 5:04 AM, Tangorre, Michael wrote:
What is the proper, or preferred way of doing the following:
I have three tables:
T1 - PK A
T2 - PK B
T3 - PK AB (compound)
Is it acceptable to add column C to T3 and make that the PK, and then
add a
unique constraint to AB? This
yeah, the question is a bit vague
-Original Message-
From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 8:44 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: OT: SQL Server Table Design Question
On Mar 18, 2004, at 5:04 AM, Tangorre, Michael wrote:
What is the proper
Basically, I only gave you a partial story.. The rest of it is that the join
tables are used in other relationships and the where conditions and join
conditions are getting sloppy. In addition, a lot of the front end deals
with dynamic forms and passing around a handful of IDs is getting
What is the proper, or preferred way of doing the following:
I have three tables:
T1 - PK A
T2 - PK B
T3 - PK AB (compound)
Is it acceptable to add column C to T3 and make that the PK,
and then add a unique constraint to AB? This would ease
writing in writing of the WHERE clauses
I tend to agree with Dave and opt for not adding Column C
If I understand, you want to deal with C as an abstractionof the A-B
relationship.I can see how passingC (instead of A B) would
simplify form handling.
But, you could pass AB just as easily as you can pass C.
I think introducing C in
Just to play devil's advocate and also enjoy the unusual experience of
disagreeing with Dave - your proposed approach of adding a surrogate key is
our standard way of doing things. Even when the table is a simple
intersection table consisting of nothing but 2 foreign keys, we always make
the
I agree, we do the same thing here.
TK
-Original Message-
From: Nick de Voil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 10:26 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: OT: SQL Server Table Design Question
Just to play devil's advocate and also enjoy the unusual experience of
disagreeing
On Mar 18, 2004, at 7:25 AM, Nick de Voil wrote:
Just to play devil's advocate and also enjoy the unusual experience of
disagreeing with Dave - your proposed approach of adding a surrogate
key is
our standard way of doing things. Even when the table is a simple
intersection table consisting of
What are some of the downsides to this? Will I experience a performance hit
should I use the additional key?
Now, the above are valid reasons for including a separate key
-- another might be that the T3 record contains intersection
data, and/or it is sometimes meaningful to process this
You should not experience any performance hit.
The only real downside is what Dave was talking about -- unless you
have a good reason, why clutter up the database with an extra field and
indexes -- the law of parsimony -- the simplest way is the best way.
But, if you *do* have a good reason
#getHeadings.Header#/h1
cfoutput group=SubHeaderID
h2#getHeadings.SubHeader#/h2
cfoutput
h3#getHeadings.Title#/h3
/cfoutput
/cfoutput
/cfoutput
-Original Message-
From: Ben Densmore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: maandag 19 januari 2004 21:54
To: CF-Talk
Subject: SOT: DB Design
I am building a few new tables to store some articles and notes on our
website. I want it structured so that it displays:
Top Level Header
Sub Heading
Title of Article
I built 3 separate tables:
One has just an ID and a Header field
The second has an ID and the Sub Heading
The third table
Ben Densmore said:
Top Level Header
Sub Heading
Title of Article
I built 3 separate tables:
One has just an ID and a Header field
The second has an ID and the Sub Heading
The third table has an ID, the Header Foreign Key and the
SubHeading
Foreign key and then the title and where the file is
I Concur... Good Solution !!
--Milan
From: Jochem van Dieten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SOT: DB Design Question
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:17:53 +0100 (CET)
Ben Densmore said:
Top Level Header
Sub Heading
Title of Article
I
Cohen, Michael said:
Thanks guys! I was figuring close to a million records potentially.
I gather from Jochem's question that a million is not prohibitively
large?:) Even to be querying on all the time?
It depends on the query patterns, but on properly sized hardware it
shouldn't be. Presuming
Say you've got a COURSE table that represents many courses. New courses will
always be being added to the table. Each course will have many quizzes and
questions that need to be stored. You would not want to have a single QUIZ
table with a composite key of COURSE_ID and QUIZ_ID because potentially
Cohen, Michael wrote:
Say you've got a COURSE table that represents many courses. New courses will
always be being added to the table. Each course will have many quizzes and
questions that need to be stored. You would not want to have a single QUIZ
table with a composite key of COURSE_ID and
You would not want to have a single QUIZ table with a
composite key of COURSE_ID and QUIZ_ID because potentially
this table would become prohibitively large, correct?
While it might become large - very large, even - I don't think it would
become prohibitively large. The same is true for your
recommendations? Thanks again.
-Original Message-
From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 11/10/2003 6:57 PM
To: CF-Talk
Cc:
Subject: Re: Data Model Design question
Cohen, Michael wrote:
Say you've got a COURSE table that represents many courses. New courses
-
From: Cohen, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 7:30 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Data Model Design question
Thanks guys! I was figuring close to a million records
potentially. I gather
from Jochem's question that a million is not prohibitively
large
Generally which is better, a single method with branching logic based on a
parameter, or separate methods? Or is there no really difference and depends
on the personal choice and the situation.
I am in the process of converting some procedural code onto cfc's. I have
several queries that where
method design question.
Generally which is better, a single method with branching logic
based on a
parameter, or separate methods? Or is there no really difference
and depends
on the personal choice and the situation.
I am in the process of converting some procedural code onto cfc's.
I
On Thursday, Sep 11, 2003, at 14:36 US/Pacific, Ian Skinner wrote:
Generally which is better, a single method with branching logic based
on a
parameter, or separate methods? Or is there no really difference and
depends
on the personal choice and the situation.
It depends. In the example
I'm reposting this. I think it got lost in the shuffle.
Any suggestions?
Scott Brady
http://www.scottbrady.net/
-- Original Message --
From: Scott Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003
Sorry for the cross-post (I posted this on evolt.org, but it seems that list
has been down for a few hours):
I'm working on a conference registration site and one of the applications
will allow sponsors to sign up (and pay) online.
I'm trying to make the data as dynamic as possible, but am
Monday, January 13, 2003, 3:24:34 PM
Hello cf-talk,
Hey everyone.
I've got a schedule of boat rides;there are three boats, and the rides run
at certain dates and different tours.
I've been given a Word document of the 2003 schedule and for example, it
lists:
Boat A.
April 18, 19, 20
April
Boat A.
April 18, 19, 20
April 26/27
May 17-June 22
June 25-october 19
Just off the top of my head:
1) A table for boats that has a record for each boat.
2) A table for trips that includes the boat_id, the departure date, and the return
date.
To get the info for a certain date, you could do
Hello Scott, On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, at 13:33:53 you carefully wrote:
Boat A.
April 18, 19, 20
April 26/27
May 17-June 22
June 25-october 19
SB Just off the top of my head:
SB 1) A table for boats that has a record for each boat.
SB 2) A table for trips that includes the boat_id, the departure
I see this working. What worries me the the trips table. I'm hoping to
avoid entering a new record for each trip, for each boat. Could I
somehow use a range? some of the trips run each day from June to
October. I'd love to find a way around entering hundreds of records
for each trip. But, I can't
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 3:26 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Application design question
Monday, January 13, 2003, 3:24:34 PM
Hello cf-talk,
Hey everyone.
I've got a schedule of boat rides;there are three boats, and the rides
run
at certain dates and different tours.
I've been given
Matthew is right on the ball.
You just have to have an entry (start and end date) for each time span. Then -- note
his note about distinct -- you'll either have to pull back all records for, say boat
A, during a given time span and print them all out, or use the CFOUTPUT GROUPBY tool
to make
- Original Message -
From: Bruce, Rodney S HQISEC/Veridian IT Services
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 3:34 PM
Subject: RE: Database design question
Janine
one question: would the goals be the same for all the students?
I would go with 3 tables
1. Student info
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
