Death to recursion! Re: Child vs parent records

[Ruslan Zasukhin]

On 12/11/05 5:19 PM, "Ed Kleban" <Ed at Kleban.com> wrote:

> Why should I not be able to implement a "ChildOf" relationship if I so
> choose instead of a "ParentOf" relation ship?

Because usually when people draw hierarchy of objects they put on top the
parents. 

I have now wish to draw several pictures which explain this more clean.

Ed, you CAN make "ChildOf" relation.

        tableA isChildOf tableB

No problems. But now rotate it in mind

                TableA

              isChildOf

                TableB

Our parameter kFromParentToChild, will move you DOWN by hierarchy.
So from top table to down table

I start to more like names: kDown, kUp  (or other correct english terms)
       


> If I can use kLeftSide and
> kRightSide as arguments to FindLinked it makes it perfectly explicit what I
> want in terms of the relationship that I envision in my own head.  It makes
> sense and works for 1:1, 1:M, M:1, M:M.  It makes sense and words for TableA
> = TableB and TableA <> TableB.   It makes sense if I define my relation ship
> as "ParentOf", "ChildOf", "GivesTo", "TakesFrom", or anything else.
> 
> And it does not ever result in the confusion you have, nor make any special
> fuss about "recursion" that arises when you are faced with trying to figure
> out how to use, and make sure you have defined your link correctly for
> kFromParentToChild vs kFromChildToParent.





-- 
Best regards,

Ruslan Zasukhin
VP Engineering and New Technology
Paradigma Software, Inc

Valentina - Joining Worlds of Information
http://www.paradigmasoft.com

[I feel the need: the need for speed]