Skip to main content
O
octavians0001
July 12, 2022
Question

Record type fields and Interface relation

  • July 12, 2022
  • 4 replies
  • 0 views

Hi all,

Our application has about 80 interfaces - small pages/lists/dialogs to do various things.

We also defined about 25 record types with some that have reached 100 fields (max limit)

What would be the recommended approach?

1 - try to keep 1 to 1 relation between interface to record type - many small record types with only the fields that are needed directly by the interfaces and related rules

OR

2 - try to have only a few massive record types - with max amount of columns/fields and reuse across many interfaces - generic massive rules that selects anything with a million filtering options

thank you

4 replies

mikes0011
mikes0011
Brainy
July 12, 2022
What would be the recommended approach?

Really I have no way of saying one way or the other, without more information about your use case / user requirements / etc.

What is your end goal?  What design concept(s) will allow your end users to most easily see what they need to see, and complete what they need to complete?

O
octavians0001Author
July 13, 2022

This is not about user experience, rather maintainability of the code, avoiding too many layers

So , how to use it as it was intended, for example in C++ it would be a no-no to make one class with 10000 lines of code..

My goal is to simplify maintenance of the code behind

stefanhelzle0001
stefanhelzle0001
July 13, 2022

I think that I do not understand you design approach. What do you mean with layers?

My world with Appian records became very simple. Each DB table becomes a record. And this is completely disconnected from any interfaces. Interfaces are build to support s specific user interaction in a business process. It will read/write any data that is required.

And I try to keep design objects simple. Even at the cost of having multiple doing similar stuff.

    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement