Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: Thomas Gagne <tgagne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:15:40 -0500
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.
--
Visit <http://blogs.instreamfinancial.com/anything.php> to read my rants on technology and the finance industry.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: topmind
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: JXStern
- 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?
- Prev by Date: Re: use case <<include>> vs. <<generalize>>
- Next by Date: Re: use case <<include>> vs. <<generalize>>
- Previous by thread: Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- Next by thread: Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|