Search Results

Search found 44734 results on 1790 pages for 'model based design'.

Page 66/1790 | < Previous Page | 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73  | Next Page >

• Properly design a code editor application

  - by Hemaulo

  I'm working on personal project which is basically a code editor. Imagine standard File menu with menu items New, Open, Save, Save As, Save All, Close, Close All. I'm stuck with proper design. Currently I have: A Document class which represents a document - code editing control, respective tab in tab bar and various properties such as Caption, Filename, IsModified etc. A Documents class which represents all open documents. Contains methods like New, Open(FileName), ... The problem is that I can't figure out which class / menu command is responsible for which tasks. For example, with File-New menu command is simple - call Documents.New and that's it. But what for File-Open? The Documents.Open method expects filename as a parameter. So before calling this method I need to open an file selection dialog, let user select files and for each file call Documents.Open(FileName). Where is best place for this supporting code, in menu command, rewrite Documents.Open and put it there? The same with Save actions. Which is responsible for saving? Is it Documents class which uses Document.Editor.SaveToFile(FileName) or better create Save method in Document class? Somewhere in the middle also need to ask user if he wants to save current document... I'm stuck. Any ideas? Edited: The programming language is Delphi.

  Read the article

• Application design question, best approach?

  - by Jamie Keeling

  Hello, I am in the process of designing an application that will allow you to find pictures (screen shots) made from certain programs. I will provide the locations of a few of the program in the application itself to get the user started. I was wondering how I should go about adding new locations as the time goes on, my first thought was simply hard coding it into the application but this will mean the user has to reinstall it to make the changes take affect. My second idea was to use an XML file to contain all the locations as well as other data, such as the name of the application. This also means the user can add their own locations if they wish as well as sharing them over the internet. The second option seemed the best approach but then I had to think how would it be managed on the users computer. Ideally I'd like just a single .exe without the reliance on any external files such as the XML but this would bring me back to point one. Would it be best to simply use the ClickOnce deployment to create an entry in the start menu and create a folder containing the .exe and the file names? Thanks for the feedback, I don't want to start implementing the application until the design is nailed.

  Read the article

• How to model a mutually exclusive relationship in sql server

  - by littlechris

  Hi, I have to add functionality to an existing application and I've run into a data situation that I'm not sure how to model. I am being restricted to the creation of new tables and code. If I need to alter the existing structure I think my client may reject the proposal..although if its the only way to get it right this is what I will have to do. I have an Item table that can me link to any number of tables, and these tables may increase over time. The Item can only me linked to one other table, but the record in the other table may have many items linked to it. Examples of the tables/entities being linked to are "Person", "Vehicle", "Building", "Office". These are all separate tables. Example of Items are "Pen", "Stapler", "Cushion", "Tyre", "A4 Paper", "Plastic Bag", "Poster", "Decoration" For instance a "Poster" may be allocated to a "Person" or "Office" or "Building". In the future if they add a "Conference Room" table it may also be added to that. My intital thoughts are: Item { ID, Name } LinkedItem { ItemID, LinkedToTableName, LinkedToID } The LinkedToTableName field will then allow me to identify the correct table to link to in my code. I'm not overly happy with this solution, but I can't quite think of anything else. Please help! :) Thanks!

  Read the article

• Design Philosophy Question - When to create new functions

  - by Eclyps19

  This is a general design question not relating to any language. I'm a bit torn between going for minimum code or optimum organization. I'll use my current project as an example. I have a bunch of tabs on a form that perform different functions. Lets say Tab 1 reads in a file with a specific layout, tab 2 exports a file to a specific location, etc. The problem I'm running into now is that I need these tabs to do something slightly different based on the contents of a variable. If it contains a 1 I may need to use Layout A and perform some extra concatenation, if it contains a 2 I may need to use Layout B and do no concatenation but add two integer fields, etc. There could be 10+ codes that I will be looking at. Is it more preferable to create an individual path for each code early on, or attempt to create a single path that branches out only when absolutely required. Creating an individual path for each code would allow my code to be extremely easy to follow at a glance, which in turn will help me out later on down the road when debugging or making changes. The downside to this is that I will increase the amount of code written by calling some of the same functions in multiple places (for example, steps 3, 5, and 9 for every single code may be exactly the same. Creating a single path that would branch out only when required will be a bit messier and more difficult to follow at a glance, but I would create less code by placing conditionals only at steps that are unique. I realize that this may be a case-by-case decision, but in general, if you were handed a previously built program to work on, which would you prefer?

  Read the article

• Class design when working with dataset

  - by MC

  If you have to retrieve data from a database and bring this dataset to the client, and then allow the user to manipulate the data in various ways before updating the database again, what is a good class design for this if the data tables will not have a 1:1 relationship with the class objects? Here are some I came up with: Just manipulate the DataSet itself on the client and then send it back to the database as is. This will work though obviously the code will be very dirty and not well-structured. Same as #1, but wrap the dataset code around classes. What I mean is that you may have a class that takes a dataset or a datatable in its constructor, and then provides public methods and properties to simplify the code. Inside these methods and properties it will be reading or manipulating the dataset. To update the database afterwards will be easy because you already have the updated dataset. Get rid of the dataset entirely on the client, convert to objects, then convert back to a dataset when needing to update the database. Is there any good resources where I can find information on this?

  Read the article

• Database design - table relationship question

  - by iama

  I am designing schema for a simple quiz application. It has 2 tables - "Question" and "Answer Choices". Question table has 'question ID', 'question text' and 'answer id' columns. "Answer Choices" table has 'question ID', 'answer ID' and 'answer text' columns. With this simple schema it is obvious that a question can have multiple answer choices & hence the need for the answer choices table. However, a question can have only one correct answer and hence the need for the 'answer ID' in the question table. However, this 'answer ID' column in the question table provides a illusion as though there can be multiple questions for a single answer which is not correct. The other alternative to eliminate this illusion is to have another table just for correct answer that will have just 2 columns namely the question ID and the answer ID with a 1-1 relationship between the two tables. However, I think this is redundant. Any recommendation on how best to design this thereby enforcing the rules that a question can have multiple answer choices but only one correct answer? Many Thanks.

  Read the article

• Object Design: How to Organize/Structure a "Collection Class"

  - by CrimsonX

  I'm currently struggling to understand how I should organize/structure a class which I have already created. The class does the following: As its input in the constructor, it takes a collection of logs In the constructor it validates and filters the logs through a series of algorithms implementing my business logic After all filtering and validation is complete, it returns a collection (a List) of the valid and filtered logs which can be presented to the user graphically in a UI. Here is some simplified code describing what I'm doing: class FilteredCollection { public FilteredCollection( SpecialArray<MyLog> myLog) { // validate inputs // filter and validate logs in collection // in end, FilteredLogs is ready for access } Public List<MyLog> FilteredLogs{ get; private set;} } However, in order to access this collection, I have to do the following: var filteredCollection = new FilteredCollection( secialArrayInput ); //Example of accessing data filteredCollection.FilteredLogs[5].MyLogData; Other key pieces of input: I foresee only one of these filtered collections existing in the application (therefore should I make it a static class? Or perhaps a singleton?) Testability and flexibility in creation of the object is important (Perhaps therefore I should keep this an instanced class for testability?) I'd prefer to simplify the dereferencing of the logs if at all possible, as the actual variable names are quite long and it takes some 60-80 characters to just get to the actual data. My attempt in keeping this class simple is that the only purpose of the class is to create this collection of validated data. I know that there may be no "perfect" solution here, but I'm really trying to improve my skills with this design and I would greatly appreciate advice to do that. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Design question for windows application, best approach?

  - by Jamie Keeling

  Hello, I am in the process of designing an application that will allow you to find pictures (screen shots) made from certain programs. I will provide the locations of a few of the program in the application itself to get the user started. I was wondering how I should go about adding new locations as the time goes on, my first thought was simply hard coding it into the application but this will mean the user has to reinstall it to make the changes take affect. My second idea was to use an XML file to contain all the locations as well as other data, such as the name of the application. This also means the user can add their own locations if they wish as well as sharing them over the internet. The second option seemed the best approach but then I had to think how would it be managed on the users computer. Ideally I'd like just a single .exe without the reliance on any external files such as the XML but this would bring me back to point one. Would it be best to simply use the ClickOnce deployment to create an entry in the start menu and create a folder containing the .exe and the file names? Thanks for the feedback, I don't want to start implementing the application until the design is nailed.

  Read the article

• Database design: Calculating the Account Balance

  - by 001

  How do I design the database to calculate the account balance? 1) Currently I calculate the account balance from the transaction table In my transaction table I have "description" and "amount" etc.. I would then add up all "amount" values and that would work out the user's account balance. I showed this to my friend and he said that is not a good solution, when my database grows its going to slow down???? He said I should create separate table to store the calculated account balance. If did this, I will have to maintain two tables, and its risky, the account balance table could go out of sync. Any suggestion? EDIT: OPTION 2: should I add an extra column to my transaction tables "Balance". now I do not need to go through many rows of data to perform my calculation. Example John buys $100 credit, he debt $60, he then adds $200 credit. Amount $100, Balance $100. Amount -$60, Balance $40. Amount $200, Balance $240.

  Read the article

• Java: design for using many executors services and only few threads

  - by Guillaume

  I need to run in parallel multiple threads to perform some tests. My 'test engine' will have n tests to perform, each one doing k sub-tests. Each test result is stored for a later usage. So I have n*k processes that can be ran concurrently. I'm trying to figure how to use the java concurrent tools efficiently. Right now I have an executor service at test level and n executor service at sub test level. I create my list of Callables for the test level. Each test callable will then create another list of callables for the subtest level. When invoked a test callable will subsequently invoke all subtest callables test 1 subtest a1 subtest ...1 subtest k1 test n subtest a2 subtest ...2 subtest k2 call sequence: test manager create test 1 callable test1 callable create subtest a1 to k1 testn callable create subtest an to kn test manager invoke all test callables test1 callable invoke all subtest a1 to k1 testn callable invoke all subtest an to kn This is working fine, but I have a lot of new treads that are created. I can not share executor service since I need to call 'shutdown' on the executors. My idea to fix this problem is to provide the same fixed size thread pool to each executor service. Do you think it is a good design ? Do I miss something more appropriate/simple for doing this ?

  Read the article

• SQL Databases and table design/organization

  - by John McMullen

  (NOOB disclaimer) I'm working on a system (a type of map), that is accessed mostly via 3 fields: ID (auto incremented), X coordinate, and Y coordinate. As it is right now, i have all data on the map, stored in 1 table. Whenever the map display is loaded it simply queries the database for contents in x and y, and the DB gives the data (other fields in the same entry). If an item on the map is doing something, it has a flag saying its doing something, and then has an ID of the action in another table holding that type of 'actions'. Essentially, for all map data, its stored in 1 table. All actions of a certain type are stored in their own table. I'm a noob, and i'm wondering what the most effective/efficient structure for such a design? (a map that has items, and each item has stats/actions). I'm using PHP atm, using standard SQL queries to get my data. Should i split up the tables so that there are only x number of entries on a table? (coord range limits)? Should it just keep growing and growing? There's a lot of queries to the table... so just tryin to see what is best :/

  Read the article

• C++ design related question

  - by Kotti

  Hi! Here is the question's plot: suppose I have some abstract classes for objects, let's call it Object. It's definition would include 2D position and dimensions. Let it also have some virtual void Render(Backend& backend) const = 0 method used for rendering. Now I specialize my inheritance tree and add Rectangle and Ellipse class. Guess they won't have their own properties, but they will have their own virtual void Render method. Let's say I implemented these methods, so that Render for Rectangle actually draws some rectangle, and the same for ellipse. Now, I add some object called Plane, which is defined as class Plane : public Rectangle and has a private member of std::vector<Object*> plane_objects; Right after that I add a method to add some object to my plane. And here comes the question. If I design this method as void AddObject(Object& object) I would face trouble like I won't be able to call virtual functions, because I would have to do something like plane_objects.push_back(new Object(object)); and this should be push_back(new Rectangle(object)) for rectangles and new Circle(...) for circles. If I implement this method as void AddObject(Object* object), it looks good, but then somewhere else this means making call like plane.AddObject(new Rectangle(params)); and this is generally a mess because then it's not clear which part of my program should free the allocated memory. ["when destroying the plane? why? are we sure that calls to AddObject were only done as AddObject(new something).] I guess the problems caused by using the second approach could be solved using smart pointers, but I am sure there have to be something better. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• What design pattern to use for one big method calling many private methods

  - by Jeune

  I have a class that has a big method that calls on a lot of private methods. I think I want to extract those private methods into their own classes for one because they contain business logic and I think they should be public so they can be unit tested. Here's a sample of the code: public void handleRow(Object arg0) { if (continueRunning){ hashData=(HashMap<String, Object>)arg0; Long stdReportId = null; Date effDate=null; if (stdReportIds!=null){ stdReportId = stdReportIds[index]; } if (effDates!=null){ effDate = effDates[index]; } initAndPutPriceBrackets(hashData, stdReportId, effDate); putBrand(hashData,stdReportId,formHandlerFor==0?true:useLiveForFirst); putMultiLangDescriptions(hashData,stdReportId); index++; if (stdReportIds!=null && stdReportIds[0].equals(stdReportIds[1])){ continueRunning=false; } if (formHandlerFor==REPORTS){ putBeginDate(hashData,effDate,custId); } //handle logic that is related to pricemaps. lstOfData.add(hashData); } } What design pattern should I apply to this problem?

  Read the article

• Design an Application That Stores and Processes Files

  - by phasetwenty

  I'm tasked with writing an application that acts as a central storage point for files (usually document formats) as provided by other applications. It also needs to take commands like "file 395 needs a copy in X format", at which point some work is offloaded to a 3rd party application. I'm having trouble coming up with a strategy for this. I'd like to keep the design as simple as possible, so I'd like to avoid big extra frameworks or techniques like threads for as long as it makes sense. The clients are expected to be web applications (for example, one is a django application that receives files from our customers; the others are not yet implemented). The platform it will be running on is likely going to be Python on Linux, unless I have a strong argument to use something else. In the beginning I thought I could fit the information I wanted to communicate in the filenames, and let my application parse the filename to figure out what it needed to do, but this is proving too inflexible with the amount of information I'm realizing I need to make available. Another idea is to pair FTP with a database used as a communication medium (client uploads a file and updates the database with a command as a row in a table) but I don't like this idea because adding commands (a known change) looks like it will require adding code as well as changing database schemas. It will also muddy up the interface my clients will have to use. I looked into Pyro to let applications communicate more directly but I don't like the idea of running an extra nameserver for this one purpose. I also don't see a good way to do file transfer within this framework. What I'm looking for is techniques and/or technologies applicable to my problem. At the simplest level, I need the ability to accept files and messages with them.

  Read the article

• Design by contracts and constructors

  - by devoured elysium

  I am implementing my own ArrayList for school purposes, but to spice up things a bit I'm trying to use C# 4.0 Code Contracts. All was fine until I needed to add Contracts to the constructors. Should I add Contract.Ensures() in the empty parameter constructor? public ArrayList(int capacity) { Contract.Requires(capacity > 0); Contract.Ensures(Size == capacity); _array = new T[capacity]; } public ArrayList() : this(32) { Contract.Ensures(Size == 32); } I'd say yes, each method should have a well defined contract. On the other hand, why put it if it's just delegating work to the "main" constructor? Logicwise, I wouldn't need to. The only point I see where it'd be useful to explicitly define the contract in both constructors is if in the future we have Intelisense support for contracts. Would that happen, it'd be useful to be explicit about which contracts each method has, as that'd appear in Intelisense. Also, are there any books around that go a bit deeper on the principles and usage of Design by Contracts? One thing is having knowledge of the syntax of how to use Contracts in a language (C#, in this case), other is knowing how and when to use it. I read several tutorials and Jon Skeet's C# in Depth article about it, but I'd like to go a bit deeper if possible. Thanks

  Read the article

• is this a design pattern?

  - by Michel

  Hi all, i have to build some financial data report, and for making the calculation, there are a lot of 'if then' situations: if it's a large client, subtract 10%, if it's postal code equals '10101', add 10%, if the day is on a saturday, make a difficult calculation etc. so i once read about this kind of example, and what they did was (hope i remember well) create a class with some base info and make it possible to add all kinds of calculationobjects to it. So to put what i remembered in pseudo code Basecalc bc = new baseCalc(); //put the info in the bc so other objects can do their if bc.Add(new Largecustomercalc()); bc.Add(new PostalcodeCalc()); bc.add(new WeekdayCalc()); the the bc would run the Calc() methods of all of the added Calc objects. As i type this i think all the Calc objects must be able to see the Basecalc properties to correctly perform their calculation logic. So all the if's are in the different Calc objects and not ALL in the Basecalc. does this make sense? I was wondering if this is some kind of design pattern?

  Read the article

• java : how to handle the design when template methods throw exception when overrided method not throw

  - by jiafu

  when coding. try to solve the puzzle: how to design the class/methods when InputStreamDigestComputor throw IOException? It seems we can't use this degisn structure due to the template method throw exception but overrided method not throw it. but if change the overrided method to throw it, will cause other subclass both throw it. So can any good suggestion for this case? abstract class DigestComputor{ String compute(DigestAlgorithm algorithm){ MessageDigest instance; try { instance = MessageDigest.getInstance(algorithm.toString()); updateMessageDigest(instance); return hex(instance.digest()); } catch (NoSuchAlgorithmException e) { LOG.error(e.getMessage(), e); throw new UnsupportedOperationException(e.getMessage(), e); } } abstract void updateMessageDigest(MessageDigest instance); } class ByteBufferDigestComputor extends DigestComputor{ private final ByteBuffer byteBuffer; public ByteBufferDigestComputor(ByteBuffer byteBuffer) { super(); this.byteBuffer = byteBuffer; } @Override void updateMessageDigest(MessageDigest instance) { instance.update(byteBuffer); } } class InputStreamDigestComputor extends DigestComputor{ // this place has error. due to exception. if I change the overrided method to throw it. evey caller will handle the exception. but @Override void updateMessageDigest(MessageDigest instance) { throw new IOException(); } }

  Read the article

• Effective communication in a component-based system

  - by Tesserex

  Yes, this is another question about my game engine, which is coming along very nicely, with much thanks to you guys. So, if you watched the video (or didn't), the objects in the game are composed of various components for things like position, sprites, movement, collision, sounds, health, etc. I have several message types defined for "tell" type communication between entities and components, but this only goes so far. There are plenty of times when I just need to ask for something, for example an entity's position. There are dozens of lines in my code that look like this: SomeComponent comp = (SomeComponent)entity.GetComponent(typeof(SomeComponent)); if (comp != null) comp.GetSomething(); I know this is very ugly, and I know that casting smells of improper OO design. But as complex as things are, there doesn't seem to be a better way. I could of course "hard-code" my component types and just have SomeComponent comp = entity.GetSomeComponent(); but that seems like a cop-out, and a bad one. I literally JUST REALIZED, while writing this, after having my code this way for months with no solution, that a generic will help me. SomeComponent comp = entity.GetComponent<SomeComponent>(); Amazing how that works. Anyway, this is still only a semantic improvement. My questions remain. Is this actually that bad? What's a better alternative?

  Read the article

• C++ socket protocol design issue (ring inclusion)

  - by Martin Lauridsen

  So I have these two classes, mpqs_client and client_protocol. The mpqs_client class handles a Boost socket connection to a server (sending and receiving messages with some specific format. Upon receiving a message, it calls a static method, parse_message(..), in the class client_protocol, and this method should analyse the message received and perform some corresponding action. Given some specific input, the parse_message method needs to send some data back to the server. As mentioned, this happens through the class mpqs_client. So I could, from mpqs_client, pass "this" to parse_message(..) in client_protocol. However, this leads to a two-way association relationship between the two classes. Something which I reckon is not desireable. Also, to implement this, I would need to include the other in each one, and this gives me a terrible pain. I am thinking this is more of a design issue. What is the best solution here? Code is posted below. Class mpqs_client: #include "mpqs_client.h" mpqs_client::mpqs_client(boost::asio::io_service& io_service, tcp::resolver::iterator endpoint_iterator) : io_service_(io_service), socket_(io_service) { ... } ... void mpqs_client::write(const network_message& msg) { io_service_.post(boost::bind(&mpqs_client::do_write, this, msg)); } Class client_protocol: #include "../network_message.hpp" #include "../protocol_consts.h" class client_protocol { public: static void parse_message(network_message& msg, mpqs_sieve **instance_, mpqs_client &client_) { ... switch (type) { case MPQS_DATA: ... break; case POLYNOMIAL_DATA: ... break; default: break; } }

  Read the article

• Rationale of C# iterators design (comparing to C++)

  - by macias

  I found similar topic: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/56347/iterators-in-c-stl-vs-java-is-there-a-conceptual-difference Which basically deals with Java iterator (which is similar to C#) being unable to going backward. So here I would like to focus on limits -- in C++ iterator does not know its limit, you have by yourself compare the given iterator with the limit. In C# iterator knows more -- you can tell without comparing to any external reference, if the iterator is valid or not. I prefer C++ way, because once having iterator you can set any iterator as a limit. In other words if you would like to get only few elements instead of entire collection, you don't have to alter the iterator (in C++). For me it is more "pure" (clear). But of course MS knew this and C++ while designing C#. So what are the advantages of C# way? Which approach is more powerful (which leads to more elegant functions based on iterators). What do I miss? If you have thoughts on C# vs. C++ iterators design other than their limits (boundaries), please also answer. Note: (just in case) please, keep the discussion strictly technical. No C++/C# flamewar.

  Read the article

• Advice on Linq to SQL mapping object design

  - by fearofawhackplanet

  I hope the title and following text are clear, I'm not very familiar with the correct terms so please correct me if I get anything wrong. I'm using Linq ORM for the first time and am wondering how to address the following. Say I have two DB tables: User ---- Id Name Phone ----- Id UserId Model The Linq code generator produces a bunch of entity classes. I then write my own classes and interfaces which wrap these Linq classes: class DatabaseUser : IUser { public DatabaseUser(User user) { _user = user; } public Guid Id { get { return _user.Id; } } ... etc } so far so good. Now it's easy enough to find a users phones from Phones.Where(p => p.User = user) but surely comsumers of the API shouldn't need to be writing their own Linq queries to get at data, so I should wrap this query in a function or property somewhere. So the question is, in this example, would you add a Phones property to IUser or not? In other words, should my interface specifically be modelling my database objects (in which case Phones doesn't belong in IUser), or are they actually simply providing a set of functions and properties which are conceptually associated with a User (in which case it does)? There seems drawbacks to both views, but I'm wondering if there is a standard approach to the problem. Or just any general words of wisdom you could share. My first thought was to use extension methods but in fact that doesn't work in this case.

  Read the article

• GridView edit problem If primary key is editable (design problem)

  - by Nassign

  I would like to ask about the design of table based on it's editability in a Grid View. Let me explain. For example, I have a table named ProductCustomerRel. Method 1 CustomerCode varchar PK ProductCode varchar PK StoreCode varchar PK Quantity int Note text So the combination of the CustomerCode, StoreCode and ProductCode must be unique. The record is displayed on a gridview. The requirement is that you can edit the customer, product and storecode but when the data is saved, the PK constraint must still persist. The problem here is it would be natural for a grid to be able to edit the 3 primary key, you can only achieve the update operation of the grid view by first deleting the row and then inserting the row with the updated data. An alternative to this is to just update the table and add a SeqNo, and just enforce the unique constraint of the 3 columns when inserting and updating in the grid view. Method 2 SeqNo int PK CustomerCode varchar ProductCode varchar StoreCode varchar Quantity int Note text My question is which of the two method is better? or is there another way to do this?

  Read the article

• Design issue when having classes implement different interfaces to restrict client actions

  - by devoured elysium

  Let's say I'm defining a game class that implements two different views: interface IPlayerView { void play(); } interface IDealerView { void deal(); } The view that a game sees when playing the game, and a view that the dealer sees when dealing the game (this is, a player can't make dealer actions and a dealer can't make player actions). The game definition is as following: class Game : IPlayerView, IDealerView { void play() { ... } void deal() { ... } } Now assume I want to make it possible for the players to play the game, but not to deal it. My original idea was that instead of having public Game GetGame() { ... } I'd have something like public IPlayerView GetGame() { ... } But after some tests I realized that if I later try this code, it works: IDealerView dealerView = (IDealerView)GameClass.GetGame(); this works as lets the user act as the dealer. Am I worrying to much? How do you usually deal with this patterns? I could instead make two different classes, maybe a "main" class, the dealer class, that would act as factory of player classes. That way I could control exactly what I would like to pass on the the public. On the other hand, that turns everything a bit more complex than with this original design. Thanks

  Read the article

• database design - empty fields

  - by imanc

  Hey, I am currently debating an issue with a guy on my dev team. He believes that empty fields are bad news. For instance, if we have a customer details table that stores data for customers from different countries, and each country has a slightly different address configuration - plus 1-2 extra fields, e.g. French customer details may also store details for entry code, and floor/level plus title fields (madamme, etc.). South Africa would have a security number. And so on. Given that we're talking about minor variances my idea is to put all of the fields into the table and use what is needed on each form. My colleague believes we should have a separate table with extra data. E.g. customer_info_fr. But this seams to totally defeat the purpose of a combined table in the first place. His argument is that empty fields / columns is bad - but I'm struggling to find justification in terms of database design principles for or against this argument and preferred solutions. Another option is a separate mini EAV table that stores extra data with parent_id, key, val fields. Or to serialise extra data into an extra_data column in the main customer_data table. I think I am confused because what I'm discussing is not covered by 3NF which is what I would typically use as a reference for how to structure data. So my question specifically: - if you have slight variances in data for each record (1-2 different fields for instance) what is the best way to proceed?

  Read the article

• database table design

  - by e.b.white

  I design the tables as below for the system which looks like a package delivering system For example, after user received the package, postman should record in system, and the state(history table) is "delivered",and operator is this postman, the current state(state table) is of course "delivered" history table: +---------------+--------------------------+ | Field | Desc | +---------------+--------------------------+ | id | PRIMARY KEY | +---------------+--------------------------+ | package_id | package_tacking_id | +---------------+--------------------------+ | state | package_state | +---------------+--------------------------+ | operators | operators | +---------------+--------------------------+ | create_time| create_time | +---------------+--------------------------+ state table: +---------------+--------------------------+ | Field | Desc | +---------------+--------------------------+ | id | PRIMARY KEY | +---------------+--------------------------+ | package_id | package_tacking_id | +---------------+--------------------------+ | state | latest_package_state | +---------------+--------------------------+ Above is just the basic information to record, some other information( like invoice, destination,...) should be recored as well. But there are different service types like s1 and s2, for s1 it is not needed to record invoice but s1 need, and maybe s1 need some other information to record (like the tel of end user). After all, at delivering way stations there are additional information to record, and for different service type the information type is different. My question is: 1. For different service type, shall I need to declare different tables(option A) or just one big table which can record all information for all types(option B)? 2. If option A, since the basic information above is MUST, how can prevent from declaring there duplicate fields in different tables?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73  | Next Page >