# Thinking of a 'n-Field'

**URL:** <https://community.datagerry.com/t/thinking-of-a-n-field/72>\
**Category:** Feature Requests\
**Created:** [March 21, 2020, 6:58pm UTC](https://community.datagerry.com/t/thinking-of-a-n-field/72 "2020-03-21T18:58:10Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![andsch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@andsch](https://community.datagerry.com/u/andsch)\
**Post date:** [March 21, 2020, 6:58pm UTC](https://community.datagerry.com/t/thinking-of-a-n-field/72/1 "2020-03-21T18:58:10Z")

</div>

Hiho…

I think this might not sound very new 😉 … but:

up until now the structure of an object is quite static.  
Have you mentioned to implement a method to change the amount of Fields on a per object base?  
Something like a “n-field” that can occur 1 to n times within an object to allow multiple values for a field along different objects of the same type.

Examples:  
n Phone-Numbers that are associated with an SIP account  
n IP-Addresses that are associated to a Router  
n VLANs that are associated to a Switch  
n AV-Pairs in a Radius account  
a.s.o.

Déjà Vu: [Dynamic amount of Fields in Object · Issue #25 · michael-batz/yourCMDB · GitHub](https://github.com/michael-batz/yourCMDB/issues/25) 😉

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![StefCoene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/76d3ee/32.png) [@StefCoene](https://community.datagerry.com/u/StefCoene)\
**Post date:** [December 9, 2020, 12:32pm UTC](https://community.datagerry.com/t/thinking-of-a-n-field/72/2 "2020-12-09T12:32:19Z")

</div>

Any update on this topic?

I also need the functionality where you can reference to multiple objects.

Stef

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kbetsis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/d78d45/32.png) [@kbetsis](https://community.datagerry.com/u/kbetsis)\
**Post date:** [March 9, 2021, 6:25pm UTC](https://community.datagerry.com/t/thinking-of-a-n-field/72/3 "2021-03-09T18:25:26Z")

</div>

I had the same issue and the only way to go around it was to do the reverse.

E.g. create a router type where routers are defined.  
Then create a vlan type where VLANs are defined and attached to routers.

This offers a more streamlined approach since you have “tables” of information aggregated.

What is an issue for me, is that there are no “restrictions” for objects linked which affects this approach since a deletion will leave orphan entries behind.