Matt Warden wrote: > If the table is truly describing a status, then there is absolutely > nothing wrong with an additional attribute that describes the group to > which it belongs. In fact, this model happens *all the time* in > relational design: it's called a many-to-one relationship. True enough, but doesn't this assume that all the objects sharing this status table will forever have exactly one "status"? Suppose an existing object is extended (or a new one added) that requires a primary and secondary status? Or, continuing the OOP analogy, presumably you wouldn't be likely to write a ProductsOrOrdersOrCustomersFactory class :-) > Would you split /products/ into different tables based on their category? If they have wildly disparate attributes -- yes :-) FWIW! -- Hassan Schroeder ----------------------------- hassan at webtuitive.com Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com opinion: webtuitive.blogspot.com dream. code.