Originally Posted by Chuck S
This thread is about a hack . . .
There is no anomaly in the code there are suppose to be multiple photos shown if you use the additional cats thing.
I guess we just disagree about whether this behavior is a "feature" or a "bug", and therefore about whether we're requesting a "hack" or a "fix", respectively.
I've been a licensed PhotoPost user since the earliest Perl-version days. This is the first application where I've really wanted a "photo database" as opposed to a "collection of albums". Big difference.
And though I am not a skilled code-writer, I nevertheless *have* been involved in numerous database design projects -- the largest of which was an enterprise-wide database of marketing documents/deliverables for IBM.
Let's imagine a hypothetical database consisting of 100 documents. Each has an author, a document "type" (e.g., a white paper, an application brief, etc.), as well as numerous other characteristics. Each document may also pertain to one or more specific *products* (or services).
Each document in the database is flagged, so that the user can view all docs pertaining to "Product A", or all those pertaining to "Service Q".
If each of those 100 documents describe TWO different products/services, it would be bad database design to DOUBLE the number of records -- and to falsely report that the database contained TWO HUNDRED documents. Don't you agree?
And if the user wanted to view "all documents that are new this week", it would be bad design to show him each new document TWICE (or even more times), just because each new document pertained to more than one product or service. Isn't that obvious?
If I wanted to correct a typo in the description of a document that pertained to SIX different products, is it reasonable to force me to make SIX SEPARATE UPDATES (since we've duplicated the data five additional times in the database)?
I hear you loud & clear when you say that "this is the way it is", and that photos are *supposed* to be duplicated in the database, and they're *supposed* to show up twice (or three times, or four times). But I'm suggesting that this design should be reconsidered.
Your design works JUST FINE as long as each photo belongs in only ONE category. It's great as a "collection of albums". But it's not working as an "searchable image database".
I'm going to copy this post over into the "suggestions" forum.