In conflict with my architect

On May 16, 8:56 pm, "David W. Fenton"
wrote:
If you have two tables that have the same
columns, then you shouldn't have two tables.

My current client has assigned an architect to design the data model
for our application. Our app requires a list of zoo resources (zoo
keepers assigned to animal enclosures). Our app also requires a list
of users (human visitors and their guide dogs who use the zoos). In
the past, I've always created separate tables for these entities.

Along comes our architect and he is obliging me to put the visitors,
zoo keepers, guide dogs and zoo animals in the same table! His view on
this is that they are all "animals" so they belong in the same table.

I don't agree with him because there are fields that pertain to zoo
animals, while other fields pertain to visitors. The validation rules
are different for both as well e.g. chimps are not permitted to take
tea in the refectory. How do I prevent a lower order primate from
being appointed as a zoo keeper?

On May 16, 8:56 pm, "David W. Fenton"
wrote:
If you have two tables that have the same
columns, then you shouldn't have two tables.

My current client has assigned an architect to design the data model
for our application. Our app requires a list of zoo resources (zoo
keepers assigned to animal enclosures). Our app also requires a list
of users (human visitors and their guide dogs who use the zoos). In
the past, I've always created separate tables for these entities.

Along comes our architect and he is obliging me to put the visitors,
zoo keepers, guide dogs and zoo animals in the same table! His view on
this is that they are all "animals" so they belong in the same table.

I don't agree with him because there are fields that pertain to zoo
animals, while other fields pertain to visitors. The validation rules
are different for both as well e.g. chimps are not permitted to take
tea in the refectory. How do I prevent a lower order primate from
being appointed as a zoo keeper?

wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 16, 8:56 pm, "David W. Fenton"
wrote:
If you have two tables that have the same
columns, then you shouldn't have two tables.

My current client has assigned an architect to design the data model
for our application. Our app requires a list of zoo resources (zoo
keepers assigned to animal enclosures). Our app also requires a list
of users (human visitors and their guide dogs who use the zoos). In
the past, I've always created separate tables for these entities.

Along comes our architect and he is obliging me to put the visitors,
zoo keepers, guide dogs and zoo animals in the same table! His view on
this is that they are all "animals" so they belong in the same table.

I don't agree with him because there are fields that pertain to zoo
animals, while other fields pertain to visitors. The validation rules
are different for both as well e.g. chimps are not permitted to take
tea in the refectory. How do I prevent a lower order primate from
being appointed as a zoo keeper?

I'd say that is a different kettle of fish entirely. He may or may not be
right about some of it.

For instance, I can see an advantage to treating zookeepers as animals,
since they can be assigned to enclosures. However, it is probably more
useful to put all of the people in one table, regardless of if they are
employees or visitors. The zoo animals should probably have their own table
as well. I suspect that the guide dogs should be in their own table, not in
with the zoo animals or the people, since they alone of all the entities
will have an owner that is in the people table. What is VERY apparent is
that your visitors should not be treated as zoo animals, because they won't
be assigned to an enclosure (unless you want to invent the fiction of a
visitor enclosure).

HTH;

Amy

I don't believe that animals belong in the people table. Chimps are
definitely human-like and we share many attributes but I resent being put
into the same table as a snake.

Roles are insufficient to separate people from animals. You will need code
fields on each record to identify human vs. animal and you will need
separate class tables to hold their unique attributes.

wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 16, 8:56 pm, "David W. Fenton"
wrote:
If you have two tables that have the same
columns, then you shouldn't have two tables.

My current client has assigned an architect to design the data model
for our application. Our app requires a list of zoo resources (zoo
keepers assigned to animal enclosures). Our app also requires a list
of users (human visitors and their guide dogs who use the zoos). In
the past, I've always created separate tables for these entities.

Along comes our architect and he is obliging me to put the visitors,
zoo keepers, guide dogs and zoo animals in the same table! His view on
this is that they are all "animals" so they belong in the same table.

I don't agree with him because there are fields that pertain to zoo
animals, while other fields pertain to visitors. The validation rules
are different for both as well e.g. chimps are not permitted to take
tea in the refectory. How do I prevent a lower order primate from
being appointed as a zoo keeper?

"Pat Hartman \(MVP\)" please no wrote in
:

I don't believe that animals belong in the people table.

You are all victims of one of Aaron's jokes. He's not serious at all
-- he never posts anything serious in any of the Access groups. All
he ever does is attempt to disrupt discussions by posting erroneous
information.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

"David W. Fenton" wrote in message
. 1...
"Pat Hartman \(MVP\)" please no wrote in
:

I don't believe that animals belong in the people table.

You are all victims of one of Aaron's jokes. He's not serious at all
-- he never posts anything serious in any of the Access groups. All
he ever does is attempt to disrupt discussions by posting erroneous
information.

Hadn't you heard? A pig is a rat is a dog is a boy...

On Mon, 21 May 2007 19:52:16 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:


"David W. Fenton" wrote in message
.1...
"Pat Hartman \(MVP\)" please no wrote in
:

I don't believe that animals belong in the people table.

You are all victims of one of Aaron's jokes. He's not serious at all
-- he never posts anything serious in any of the Access groups. All
he ever does is attempt to disrupt discussions by posting erroneous
information.

Hadn't you heard? A pig is a rat is a dog is a boy...


And all animals are equal...

but some are more equal than others.

John W. Vinson [MVP]