"Sheridan Saint-Michel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
00f601c12ca3$8bb26420$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:00f601c12ca3$8bb26420$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...

> From: "Hugh Bothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > "Sheridan Saint-Michel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > 03a901c12c02$c60d4640$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:03a901c12c02$c60d4640$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I don't know if having multiple users associated with a single image
> > > at all beneficial, and I can see where it might cause all sorts of
> > problems.
> > >
> > > For example, you and I both have the same image in our album (we are
> > >  both assciated with it in the DB).  What happens when I change the
> > > description?  Do you change the description field, thus changing the
> > > description on both our pages?  Do you now have to create another
> > > in your Image table?
> >
> > Just to be nitpicky: I don't see where this would be
> > useful - allowing users to share/transfer pictures? - but
> > it's not overly difficult either.  Just split the information
> > between an Image table and an ImageOwner
> > table.
> He suggested a DB redesign to allow a Many to
> Many relationship between users and images.
> I was trying to show that there was no reason to
> do so and at least one good reason not to do so  =)

Yes, I followed that - I'm just playing Devil's Advocate
here.  I would rephrase your conclusion as
'no reason to do so, but no reason not to if you
really feel the need'.

PHP Database Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to