Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru>
Newsgroups: comp.programming
Subject: Re: .paid field vs .payment field
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 17:17:56 +0300
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <pobjcp$1dhl$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <po0slo$eqg$1@gioia.aioe.org> <03ff8449-f4f8-4c03-84d0-ab5efd539efa@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pBmnB3gIZB1BuvejubpZaQ.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: KNode/4.14.10
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.3
Xref: csiph.com comp.programming:9297

Julio Di Egidio wrote:

> On Thursday, 20 September 2018 21:33:18 UTC+2, Victor Porton  wrote:
> 
>> I am writing a class SimpleItem representing a non-recurrent (one-time)
>> purchase.
> 
> Call it SimplePurchase then, and have it "contain" a SimpleItem as well as
> a SimplePayment (there's hardly any reason not to abstract the two apart),
> as well as, maybe, a SimpleRefund... i.e. depending on your
> business-level, aka explicit, *requirements*.

No, SimpleItem already has foreign key to SimplePayment. There is no need 
for SimplePurchase to link to SimplePayment too.

> HTH,
> 
> Julio

-- 
Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org