Re: DB Architecture, 2 cents-worth more

[<ma...@li...>]

I think the base table layout of SQL-Ledger essentially reflect Dieter's
basic design for the package, and it appears to be serving us well.  At
least, I'm not pursuaded that there's justification for further
decomposition of these tables, either.

OTOH, I wonder if addressing numeric representation issues might not be a
more promising direction for work, for someone knowledgeable about those
issues.  That's not me, I'm afraid.

I will say that I value SQL-Ledger's focus on accounting.  I think that's
why it has reached usability so quickly.  Other projects aimed at
replacement of SAP R/3 (e.g., Linux-Kontor) have struggled for years and
not produced anything that could be used--thereby, gaining users and an
incentive to grow and improve.

Matt


On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Dieter Simader wrote:

> For what it's worth, I am not combining the customer and vendor tables
> because they are two distinct entities which might share the same address
> but even that is not always the case. Some may have even noticed that
> there is room for one contact person only. This was actually done
> delibertly so people wouldn't get the idea that the table can be used for
> keeping track of your barber's or dog's name.
>
>

-- 

Matt Benjamin

The Linux Box
206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150
Ann Arbor, MI  48104

tel. 734-761-4689
fax. 734-769-8938
cel. 734-216-5309
pgr. 734-431-0118