Title:
Bug 78925:Summary: docs for relationships for ORM integrationI’m just going through the docs for the ORM stuff, and am currently looking at relationships (I can feel Rupesh cringing as I type this [Wink] , this
| View in TrackerStatus/Resolution/Reason: Closed/Fixed/
Reporter/Name(from Bugbase): Adam Cameron / Adam Cameron (Adam Cameron)
Created: 07/20/2009
Components: Documentation, Examples
Versions: 9.0
Failure Type: Unspecified
Found In Build/Fixed In Build: 0000 /
Priority/Frequency: Normal / Unknown
Locale/System: English / Platforms All
Vote Count: 0
Problem:
Summary: docs for relationships for ORM integrationI’m just going through the docs for the ORM stuff, and am currently looking at relationships (I can feel Rupesh cringing as I type this [Wink] , this page in particular.Just a small linguistic observation really: saying an "An example of a one-to-many relationship is the relation between artist and art, where the artist has many arts" is a bit... well... not something one would normally say in English. One doesn’t have "many arts"; one might have "many works of art" or "many pieces of art", but the basic noun "art" is an abstract one so referring to it in plural doesn’t make sense, nor does a person have one or more of it.I actually think the examples on this page are a bit all over the place. It’d be nice to pick a metaphor most people are likely to be very comfortable with, and stick to it. This page deals with person/address, art/artist, department/employee, employee/officeCube (surely you mean "cubicle"?), order/product.The good reason to stick with one metaphor is that one gets a feeling for how each element relates to each other, even across examples. If one chops and changes metaphors, some time is lost thinking... "hang on... is and artist in this example the equivalent of a department in that last one? Or an employee? How many office cubes is an art going to have? WTF?" Also one can have a single piece of narrative at the beginning of the section explaining in human-language how the various components relate, and possibly a graphic representation and a class diagram or something like that. It makes it more into a story, which people find a lot easier to understand and remember than a set of disconnected snippets of info and syntax.But at the very least you need to loose the "arts" and the "office cubes", I think.Also see conversation @ https://prerelease.adobe.com/project/forum/thread.html?cap=87529bda13744b3db718e841890b9240&forid={936680a8-3cd1-4d52-bcee-9ef903d7fb02}&topid={f88c099a-633c-4332-87e7-cb159a233cd0}-- Adam
Method:
Result:
----------------------------- Additional Watson Details -----------------------------
Watson Bug ID: 3039360
External Customer Info:
External Company:
External Customer Name: Adam Cameron
External Customer Email: 17EB1A7649DA54C7992015A9
External Test Config: 07/20/2009Attachments:
Comments: