Share Database tables between APPS

Feature Requests
,
21

I think from a purely economic stand point this is a must for knacks long term competitiveness now that Microsoft Power Apps provides just this. The whole point of a data base is to reduce data entry and keep things real time. Here are some of advantages this offers your clients:

1) we can build many simple apps as part of a development road map instead of one large app.
a) This means clients will move into production faster.
b) on boarding becomes much easier as the learning curve is distributed across app workflows.

It basically makes knack a custom CRM provider instead of form builder.

You charge per app and record volume!! More small apps means more money for Knack!

Clients can bring more and more processes onboard knack overtime - fundamentally resulting in higher client loyalty.

Developers can bill their clients better build apps for them faster makes.

The list goes on. It'll solidify your competitive advantage as a business development consultant I really can't see another feature that would offer both the client and knack a better return on investment. Instead of duplicating what others do better (webmerge,etc.) Knack is better off concentrating its efforts on what it does best - organizing people's data and data collection.

22

I built the first application and was impressed. As soon as i started designing the second app, i started searching for shared database, and here i come. This is very important it seems. And since it is not available, i am going to try it on the same app. But my tables and pages will keep growing, and at one point it will tend to get out of control. SO any update on this feature ? Any ETA ? Thanks

23

I'd like to add my vote to this request. Seems rather fundamental and a step backward to not have this available.

24

Any update on this? I would like to be able to use objects connections from one app to build another app. Would be nice!

25

Lol deferred, what Knack means to say is "learn to build a better database" so you don't need databases to speak to each other;

Think about Google.

Google is one gigantic database that talks to itself.

Imagine if Google search had to query gmail had to query google docs had to query google maps etc the list is endless with the amount of Google properties

How to solve this?

Put everything under one Object

So-- you don't have a separate login for Gmail, and Youtube, and Google Drive.

You have one single login.

This is because the coders back at Google are smarter than us.

So what Knack really wants to say is learn how to make your whole application under one app if you really need this feature that bad.Ā 

26

In the case above me. You wouldn't need to maintain another user table, it could also be shared.Ā 

Why I see this being super helpful is in the case of operating multiple apps that are fundamentally all different. I offer the ability for the person using it to submit a support ticket. I might like to have all the apps in my account submit support tickets all to one place.Ā 

Same thing for payments. Any payments collected from all of my apps, they could collect in one central app that allows for easier tracking.Ā 

27

One other issue is shared 'user permission tables' between apps. I do not want our users to have to 're-register' again for their passwords, so if I cannot share them between apps, they basically have to create and maintain separate logins for each app. That does not really make any sense...

28

I agree! Ā This feature would add greatly to the apps that I am creating. Ā I hope Knack will reconsider the location of this feature on their roadmap.Ā 

29

Yes, please do this. Being able to access common data across desktop and mobile versions of an app would help hugely.

30

This would really be nice to have.


I'd love to have multiple apps just for mobile deployment. Ā A very simple interface for data entry from cell phones, as necessary,Ā 


and a more complex app with added functionality that will be used primarily on the desktop with more sophisticated functionality.


I wish there was simple work around without having to add too many clicks at the front-end of the app.


Wouter

31

+1 on this!

32

Omar, while your message maybe technically true it misses the point. Put simply a table such as "contacts" would be used by any number of unrelated apps, surely you must agree with this point. Now given Knack doesnt allow shared tables, contacts will need to be added to each app and thus why despite Knack being a great tool, it doesnt suit our business because we have a number of tables e.g. contacts that we simply cannot be replicated between apps NOR can we do what your message suggested and bundle everything into one app just because we cannot share 1 or 2 tables. The underlying strength of databases is its relational ability in order to leverage existing data sets and the fact Knack doesnt do this AT ALL, i still feel is a monumental failure of the app.

33

Hi Omar,

Agree for the specific case, but as soon as you are addressing different functionality inside your company you need to have different apps, and then duplicating data is bad design (I would need different tables like e.g. Department Code/Names, Project Codes and Names etc to be shared amongst different apps). I can try to build them all into one app, but again that defeats the purpose for wanting to pay for 25 apps... Is it that hard to implement this ? User Tables are already shared ?

34

I can see how this feature would be useful; however I donā€™t see it as urgent or necessary because you can build everything under a single app-- if it is well thought out and planned in advance.

For example, in th OPā€™s original example, thereā€™s no reason to separate inventory/crm/jobs/contacts/suppliers

Those should all be objects within the same app

And to be efficient: contacts and suppliers shouldnā€™t be two different objects
Contacts object should have a Field called ā€œcontact typeā€ and one of those types is ā€œsupplierā€

What this feature will allow is sort of an ā€œapiā€ access within knack
Which can be replicated through a Zapier zap

1 Like
35

Any Update on this ? Would really love to see this myself! Critically important as Caspio has it as well.Ā 

1 Like
36

Hey Kirk. I am not sure if i have followed you right or not, but this sounds like a feature suggestion on its own, aside from 'Share Database tables between APPS'... if so, you should post it separately or it might not get any legs

1 Like
37

How about a feature in the builder allowing the objects and pages to be grouped then collapsed? That would make a comprehensive app more manageable.

1 Like
38

Thanks for the update Brandon and that makes sense.

Possible workaround until the apps are merged might be to setup a two way sync using Zapier with triggers of object updates, inserts and deletions performing those functions on another Knack object for a different app.

But as you suggest, looking to combine tables/objects probably means the app(s) could be better designed.

1 Like
39

This would make things so much easier to manage.
However, running a software engineering firm for thirty three years I know this is not a light weight change. Itā€™s as major as they come and may require a rewrite of many sections if not a complete rewrite.
It would be productive to get some response on this from Knack.
If itā€™s not in the card they we will all drop it and work with what we have which is still good.

1 Like
40

This is massive. Can Knack provide a comment on potential for this?

1 Like