Thanks for the information. The thumb rule and all will definitely help me in
modelling.
Thanks a Lot
Best Regards
B S Pradhan
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 Michael Milligan wrote :
Hi Again,
What I do when a model is going to change is try to make it
Hey Michael
I enjoyed your write-up.. especially a few db guys telling 'its relational because
they are related'... I have also heard about it and the fact is that SQL the language
for all the RDBMA is based on relational algebra and relational calcus and there in
maths a rwo-column structure
Hi Again,
What I do when a model is going to change is try to make it as flexible as
possible from the start. Build more abstraction into the model than you
normally would. Normalization is even more important here, even going to 4th
or 5th form, or at least Boyce-Codd 3rd. You want to design it
Hi Again,
What I do when a model is going to change is try to make it as flexible as
possible from the start. Build more abstraction into the model than you
normally would. Normalization is even more important here, even going to 4th
or 5th form, or at least Boyce-Codd 3rd. You want to design it
Chris,
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with your evaluation of what SHOULD be
done (emphasis on purpose).
But, you have to deal with the people and politics of the client. As I said
before, it sounds like something else is going on in the organization, and
someone decided to pull and
Hmmm...when the spec is changed because of some business requirement then
that's fine. But when it's changed because your own designers cant argue
the design on technical merit then what? A spec should quote all the
business rules, and some high level details about the overall architecture
of
