RE: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship

2003-10-31 Thread Colm Brazel
ublications by telephone at 353-1-4941625 or e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] and delete the e-mail from your system. -Original Message- From: Lovelock, Richard J [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 October 2003 16:05 To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relat

Re: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship

2003-10-31 Thread Stephen Moretti
In fact if you look at J2ee CMP spec. there are seven different relationships including one-to-one, one-to-many etc. for this very reason. Sometimes normalisation is not the best model. If I remember correctly this is the 5th normal form. Most normalisation stops at 4th Normal Form. Instance like

RE: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship

2003-10-31 Thread Adam Reynolds
D]' > Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship > > > Thanks Colm - that has good reviews on Amazon - I might get that > > ___ > * Regards, > Richard Lovelock > Westminster City Council - Web Su

RE: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship

2003-10-31 Thread Justin
EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship Thanks Colm - that has good reviews on Amazon - I might get that ___ * Regards, Richard Lovelock Westminster City Council - Web Support Cap Gemini Ernst

RE: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship

2003-10-31 Thread Justin
lisation is not the best model. Justin -Original Message- From: Gordon Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 October 2003 15:41 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship if you are down to 1-1 relationships, then the data is 'incorrectly' organise

RE: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship

2003-10-31 Thread Lovelock, Richard J
7482 ___ -Original Message- From: Colm Brazel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 October 2003 16:00 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship 'Database Design for Mere Mortals', Hernandez, good

RE: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship

2003-10-31 Thread Colm Brazel
'Database Design for Mere Mortals', Hernandez, good for pondering these issues -Original Message- From: Aidan Whitehall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 October 2003 15:53 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship No he's right -- you n

RE: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship

2003-10-31 Thread duncan . cumming
AIL PROTECTED]cc: el4.co.uk> Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship

RE: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship

2003-10-31 Thread Gordon Thomas
riginal Message- From: Adrian Lynch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 October 2003 15:51 To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship What do you think to the idea of having separate tables to allow of easier expansion if it's needed? Ade -Original Me

RE: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship

2003-10-31 Thread Aidan Whitehall
No he's right -- you need a table per entity but with an intermediary table binding teams to pitches Teams TeamID Team etc | TeamPitches TeamID PitchID | Pitches PitchID etc That gives you the flexibility to handle teams that share pitches. Obviously, put a uniqueness constraint on T

RE: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship

2003-10-31 Thread Colm Brazel
ilto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 October 2003 15:28 To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship I think it's a case of what belongs to what. Does a football team have a ground or does a ground have a football team? If you think they are both valid,

RE: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship

2003-10-31 Thread Adrian Lynch
What do you think to the idea of having separate tables to allow of easier expansion if it's needed? Ade -Original Message- From: Gordon Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 October 2003 15:41 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship if you are do

RE: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship

2003-10-31 Thread Gordon Thomas
tober 2003 15:23 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship This is a very simple question, but something I've never really given much thought before. If you've got two tables with a one-to-one relationship, how do you deal with the foreign keys? e.g. lets say y

Re: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship

2003-10-31 Thread Stephen Moretti
Generally speaking, if you have a one to one relationship, then something has gone awry in your data normalisation. The information that is in the two tables should possibly only be in one table. Stephen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a very simple question, but something I've never really g

RE: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship

2003-10-31 Thread Lovelock, Richard J
orth Road London SW8 2HG ( 0870 906 7482 ___ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 October 2003 15:23 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship This is a very simple

RE: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship

2003-10-31 Thread Adrian Lynch
have two teams than a team is likely to have two grounds, but then of course you could add to that the training grounds... Ade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 October 2003 15:23 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship

[ cf-dev ] one-to-one relationship

2003-10-31 Thread duncan . cumming
This is a very simple question, but something I've never really given much thought before. If you've got two tables with a one-to-one relationship, how do you deal with the foreign keys? e.g. lets say you had FootballTeams and FootballGrounds (and lets pretend there aren't any teams that share g