Cisco Ri wrote: > Ar Chron wrote: >> Umm... no. >> >> Table 'users' already has an implicit 'id' field (you don't have to >> mention them in your migrations), just like your 'links' table does. If >> you are sticking to the rails standard, you needn't declare them, they >> are the rails default primary key for their respective tables. >> >> In your 'links' table, a 'user_id' field tells rails that: >> >> a) this field, 'user_id', contains an id to a record in another table - >> i.e., this record "belongs to" that record in that table over there, >> >> and that >> >> b) the related table is 'users' (field name - '_id', pluralized). > > Thanks for letting me know. In links/new, how would I go about > including the current user_id? The only way I know of would be a hidden > form element, and I would like to keep it all server side.
Hi Cisco, I will post my solution later tonight. I'm at work so I don't have access. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
