Page 1 of 1

Recipes (question)

Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:24 pm
by John Adams
LE,

I'm sure this hasn't been addressed yet, so let me ask you to look into the future again.

item_details_recipe;
This table has 2 fields; the PK and item_id. What is the purpose behind this table? Right now it appears that item_id merely points back to the items record for the recipe book itself (in `items`) and nothing else. Is that all it's supposed to do? If so, is it really necessary? Couldn't we just use the table `items` of type "Recipe" to pull these up? I don't so much mind this extra table - just seems unnecessary.

item_details_recipe_items;
This table is supposed to contain the list of all the items this recipe book can create, right? If so, would it be better to link the resultant item to the items.name field and do a join, rather than clutter the table with redundant item "name" text? I assume there is no situation that crafting an item from a recipe book will NOT result in a physical Item being created - and thus there will always be an items.name record to point to.

Reason I am asking now is that i am building the Items / Recipe editor, and would like to know if this structure is even finished yet, or should I wait til we get to Recipes? Either way, it's another thing for your list :) (post 0.7, of course)

Re: Recipes (question)

Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:45 pm
by LethalEncounter
Yah you can definitely do that. That is just how live sends it, which is why it is saved like that in the db. About the raw_item_details_recipe table, I honestly can't think of the reason I did it that way, unless I was thinking about something else at the time :/

Re: Recipes (question)

Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:47 pm
by John Adams
Heh, ok. Well we can leave the structures as they are now. I found a few more fields in RAW for item_details_recipe, so if we can determine what those values are for we may need this table afterall.

We just won't fiddle with details of Recipes until after they are implemented, anyway. Makes no sense to guess.

Thanks