|
|
Posted by Frankly on 09/30/41 11:50
"J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> wrote in message
news:4fb1eiF1hup8mU1@individual.net...
> strawberry wrote:
>
>> I'm still not sure that the images bit is flexible enough, but I guess
>> it's a start.
>
> It depends on what would be stored there, if it's with full path to the
> image, then it may or may not be enough, but if it's just the name of the
> image (you can hardcode the path, so you don't need to save that in the
> table), then many digital cameras uses 8.3 (12 character in total) as the
> name for the image, in this case the 50 would be over kill, but then I
> don't know what Frankly want to store.
>
>
> //Aho
I am thinking it would be better to hardcode the path. I tried to do the 2
foreign key, primary key thing.
of course it did not work with the tables I have done before. i need to try
it again with these tables once they are corrected.
the camera does a IMG_166 for example.
i normally leave what the camera does and add in Kitchen, bathroom ect. the
camera helps me keep the file names unigue. another choice might be a table
with hardcode paths to the pictures and make a relation to the apartments
table and if that works would i need a relation for the buildings table to
show that picture.
Frank
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|