# Reusing Single- and Multi-Select options?

**URL:** <https://community.fibery.io/t/reusing-single-and-multi-select-options/1952>\
**Category:** Get Help\
**Created:** [August 28, 2021, 1:40am UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/reusing-single-and-multi-select-options/1952 "2021-08-28T01:40:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 8

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chr1sG](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/chr1sg/32/3941_2.png) [@Chr1sG](https://community.fibery.io/u/Chr1sG)\
**Post date:** [August 28, 2021, 5:05pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/reusing-single-and-multi-select-options/1952/8 "2021-08-28T17:05:08Z")

</div>

> [@Oshyan](#):
>
> I think it’s quite similar to this previous request by Chris himself

Actually, my original request was more about laziness(!) in that I thought it would be nice to be able to define a workflow once and make it available for multiple types simultaneously, but I can see why what i wrote can be thought of as large set of cases, including this one.

> [@Oshyan](#):
>
> a Type can be overly “heavy” as a solution

Yeah, i get that. I think i might have even asked in the past if there was a technical reason why a single- or muli-select couldn’t be ‘owned’ by more than one type (and the answer was, yes, there is).

> [@Oshyan](#):
>
> something like 1: a “data store” (“array”?) type of field or other “object” in Fibery

There is actually some discussions internally about ‘global types’ or ‘app-less types’ where there may exist the need for ‘shared’ data.  
I don’t think it quite matches what you’re describing (and probably couldn’t be called lightweight) but there are potentially some overlapping use cases.

---

_[View the full topic](https://community.fibery.io/t/reusing-single-and-multi-select-options/1952)._