Re: foreign key question

I don't fully follow the question -- maybe a complete example would be better. 

But, off the top of my head, it seems that you could do 3 levels of 
master/detail. 

Org Datasource + Block 
   |
  +-- Department Datasource
        | 
        +--  Employee Datasource + Block 

The Department datasource doesn't have to be tied to a block and doesn't have 
to display any fields, but could still be there to link the tables together. 

-- Jason 

On Monday 07 June 2004 02:27 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Hello, everybody.
>
> I'm putting up a low-ambitious/high-serious app (that, of course, will
> be freely available, when it comes to something shareable;).
>
> I have an employee table linked by foreign key to a dept table, linked
> by foreign key to an org table. The overall view is something like this:
>
> {app}_customer     org_cus < - - - - - - -
> --------------     -------                |
>     id - - - - - - > id  - - - - - - - -  |
>
>                                 org_org | |  loc_address
>                                 ------- | |  -----------
>                              - > id  < -  |    id
>
>                             |    type  - -      |
>                             |    address < - - -
>
>                    org_dept |
>                    -------- |
>                      org - -
>                      id
>         org_employee  ^
>         ------------  |
>            dept  - - -
>            id
> org_comm    ^
> --------    |
> employee - -
>
> I have an issue where a form record needs to hold the key of an employee
> belonging to a known org, but, as said before, employee records are linked
> to dept records, that are linked to org records. That is, there isn't an
> employee field that directly links to an org record. Is there a way for
> doing that kind of thing without re-structuring data?
>
> I've already re-arranged my data structure due to an issue like this,
> i.e., indirect relations between tables, and I was wondering if, in
> fact, things alike could, _already_, be done with gnue-forms.
>
> Thanks for your attention.