Re: [SQLObject] RelatedJoin bug

[Edmund L. <el...@in...>]

Luke Opperman wrote:

> Care to elaborate on the design reasons for sticking these both
> in one table instead of two?

Sorry to take so long to get back to you... I had been rummaging around 
looking for an example from a rather wierd organization relationship 
situation I came across a few months back at a government organization. 
After looking at it, I don't think it applies here.

However, I suppose the biggest reason for wanting to keep more than one 
related join in a table is to allow for easy querying.

By keeping all the related join mappings in a single table, it is easier 
to make queries on the relationships themselves. E.g., find all 
relationships where a Person has a simultaneous relationship with (Cat 
and Dog and Bird). This is mostly useful when the relationship or 
characteristics of the relationship are important.

If each pairwise relationship was scattered across separate mapping 
tables, it becomes a bit more cumbersome to make queries on 
relationships. What's more if some attributes only apply when certain 
combinations of relationships are true, then maybe it make sense to 
store them with the mapping table.

Or, maybe the data model really needs to be rewritten... But anyway, it 
is nice to have the option of using perverted data model.  :-)

...Edmund.