undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbob10291y ago0 comments

Think about a collection of one related type on another, such as Customer -> Accounts + Account -> Customers. In banking, it is possible for one customer to have many accounts, and for each account to have many customers.

OOP will let you express this kind of problem from a data modeling perspective (List<T> on each type), but from a serialization and dependency perspective you have to pick a "winner". In banking, it is unclear which type should be king.

The relational approach is to use a join table. Model the actual relationship itself and its relevant attributes (role on the account, beneficiary %, etc). This also handles any arbitrary graph of accounts and customers, assuming you are using a modern database engine that supports with recursive & cycle keywords.

ORMs will blow up on this kind of thing without special handling.

0 comments

eadmund1y ago

> OOP will let you express this kind of problem from a data modeling perspective (List<T> on each type), but from a serialization and dependency perspective you have to pick a "winner". In banking, it is unclear which type should be king.

Serialisation is not necessarily a big deal, just pick one and refer back to it — check out PRINT-CIRCLE, Sharpsign Equal-Sign and Sharpsign Sharpsign in Common Lisp.

For dependencies, I think this only matters with strong type systems which don’t support forward declarations, or which lack null references/empty containers (if the language does support that, just create one object without any references, create the second, then add the second to the first).

facturi1y ago

This is related: Why relations are better than objects https://www.cell-lang.net/relations.html

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse