Regd: 'Doing an automated migration would only work if you know that all current values in the database are among the enumerated options you want to migrate to'
Migration could check and create the enumerated option if it does not exist. So Party has refrences to PersonalTitleId, where PersonalTitleId = CreteOrRetrieveReference(text field PersonalTitle) There maybe a similar pattern with city in PostalCode. It(city) is text but there is a need to constrain city value to limited set(e.g. to avoid typos). There may be other cases in schema where text can be modelled as an enumerated type. I understand the motivation of not breaking other apps that rely on text, but wondering if there should(or is) 'deprecated' style annotation to nudge movement to stronger reference checks at schema level. Having enumeration type reference does not prevent a UI functionality to show text field(if that is what the app requires) but the service at the backend has much more increased complexity to do createOrRetrieve rerference thoughts ? Harmeet On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:46 PM, David E Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yeah, that's the exact issue with the title too... there are potentially > thousands of them if you try to include every culture in the world (and > hundreds even for English speaking cultures, especially if you include > royalty/class titles, military titles, etc). On the other hand, now that I > think about it more, maybe that's why they want a drop-down: to restrict it > a certain small set of available titles. Anyway, supporting both still seems > the way to go. > > -David > > > > On Jun 27, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Tim Ruppert wrote: > > I would say yes - but it does limit us to what we know about - but that's >> the case with any lookup. >> >> Cheers, >> Tim >> -- >> Tim Ruppert >> HotWax Media >> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >> >> o:801.649.6594 >> f:801.649.6595 >> >> On Jun 27, 2009, at 11:32 AM, David E Jones wrote: >> >> >>> On Jun 27, 2009, at 8:07 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>> >>> On a side note, would you want to do this with the suffix or any other >>>>> fields? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I am sorry but I don't understand the above question. >>>> >>> >>> The questions was mainly for Bob, but I guess something for anyone to >>> consider: would we want to have drop-downs for things like the Person.suffix >>> field (ie Esq., II, III, Jr., Sr., Ph.D., MD, etc, etc) and perhaps others >>> fields? >>> >>> -David >>> >>> >> >
