DB design document

[David Merrill]

On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 10:21:30AM -0600, Bill Gribble wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 09:58:25AM -0500, David Merrill wrote:
> > So an account group can belong to another account group? The current
> > schema doesn't provide for that. Should it? If it does, then we have
> > account groups which can contain other account groups or accounts. the
> > sub-groups can contain other groups or accounts. The accounts can
> > contain other accounts.
> 
> Currently in gnucash, a Group (account group) has a set of Accounts.
> An Account has a Group which contains all of its children.  So an
> Account has exactly one Group, which itself has some set of accounts,
> rather than an Account having several Accounts as children.

So there is no need for a parent_account_guid which allows accounts to
have subaccounts? We only need an arbitrary number of account groups,
each of which contains an arbitrary number of accounts?

And should an account be in more than one group, or should the account
group mechanism be strictly hierarchical?

-- 
Dr. David C. Merrill                     http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project                dmerrill@lupercalia.net
Collection Editor & Coordinator            http://www.linuxdoc.org
                                       Finger me for my public key

I stopped believing in Santa Claus when I was six. Mother took me to see him in a department store and he asked for my autograph.
		-- Shirley Temple