Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: JXStern <JXSternChangeX2R@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 16:18:55 GMT
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:15:40 -0500, Thomas Gagne
<tgagne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've written multiple financial OLTP systems and can confidently say
there's no such thing as "john bill 5".
A transaction system must be able to record:
Check for $10.
Cash for $20.
Deposit to checking $15.
Payment to line-of-credit: $15.
or perhaps
Check for $100.
Interest payment: $98.
Principle payment: $2.
These are all examples of double-entry/balanced transactions.
Double-entry is a misnomer. It's not so much as recording the same
information twice as much as it is creating smaller transactions and
building bigger transactions out of them.
In fact, it allows one-to-many and many-to-many transactions to be
traced.
Debit $20 for sale of widget.
Debit $30 for sale of thingy.
Credit $10 to overhead.
Credit $5 to commissions.
Credit $15 to royalties.
Credit $20 to suppliers.
J.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: Thomas Gagne
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- References:
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: Thomas Gagne
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: topmind
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: Thomas Gagne
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: Doc O'Leary
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: Thomas Gagne
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- Prev by Date: Re: use case <<include>> vs. <<generalize>>
- Next by Date: Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- Previous by thread: Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- Next by thread: Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|