On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 09:33 +0200, Michael Jenny wrote: > [snip] > > > > > I'm fairly sure that in most cases, and in your case, you should really > > have an intermediate table, because, in your example, not just one > > person can have an iPhone. > > > > Absolutely. That example was not really representative. > > > For instance, this uses an invoice lines table, which has both an > > Invoice ID value and a Product ID value. You can then use a regular > > choices drop-down: > > http://www.glom.org/wiki/index.php?title=Screenshots#The_Details_View_-_related_records > > Yes, that is for m:n relations. An intermediary table is necessary, > because the foreign object is shareable among peer records. But as you > said, the question is if there are *that* many real world examples, > where the related object is not shareable.
As a start, it would be interesting to know of one real world example. -- Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com _______________________________________________ glom-devel-list mailing list glom-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/glom-devel-list
