Discussion: iCalendar Integration

[Adrian Crum]

I'm almost ready to commit the work I have been doing on the iCalendar
integration. Before I do, I would like some feedback on a particular
function.

Background: One work effort serves as an iCalendar "publish point" -
it's not a work effort that anyone interacts with, it just contains
settings that tell the iCalendar servlet what to do. In the current
implementation, all public work efforts of all parties assigned to the
publish point will be included in the calendar. The party's assignment
role is ignored. The publish point's scope (public, confidential,
private) is ignored. These are things I would like to change.

In the new implementation, if the publish point work effort has a public
scope, then anyone can view work efforts that are related to it. If the
scope isn't public, then access to the related work efforts is
restricted to only the parties who are assigned to the publish point.
Oops, now I have a conflict with the previous implementation - where a
party assignment meant to include that party's public work efforts in
the calendar.

Here's where I need the feedback. I need to use the publish point work
effort to party assignment ROLE to control what the servlet does. A
party related to the publish point in role "A" is a party whose public
work efforts are included in the calendar. A party assigned to the
publish point in role "B" is a party whose access to the calendar is
controlled by the publish point.

Looking at the current calendar roles, we have Attendee, Delegate, Host,
Organizer, and Owner. The Delegate role might be appropriate for the
party in role "B". I don't know what to do about the party in role "A" -
should I create a new role? Something like "Calendar Participant" or
"Calendar Member"?

Any feedback would be appreciated!

-Adrian

[hans_bakker]

Hi Adrian,

thanks first of all the work you are doing here, and excellent addition
to the system. However i have the impression that not enough existing
functions in ofbiz are re-used and the implementation is not integrated
enough. Related to that is how this will work together with the calendar
function in workeffort? In that calendar there is no publishpoint.

In the end, the ical calendar downloaded should be the same as the
workeffort calendar showed in the screens?

Can you please explain what your thoughts are on this?

see further my comments inline....


On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 16:06 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:

> I'm almost ready to commit the work I have been doing on the iCalendar
> integration. Before I do, I would like some feedback on a particular
> function.
>
> Background: One work effort serves as an iCalendar "publish point" -
> it's not a work effort that anyone interacts with, it just contains
> settings that tell the iCalendar servlet what to do. In the current
> implementation, all public work efforts of all parties assigned to the
> publish point will be included in the calendar. The party's assignment
> role is ignored. The publish point's scope (public, confidential,
> private) is ignored. These are things I would like to change.
>
> In the new implementation, if the publish point work effort has a public
> scope, then anyone can view work efforts that are related to it. If the
> scope isn't public, then access to the related work efforts is
> restricted to only the parties who are assigned to the publish point.
> Oops, now I have a conflict with the previous implementation - where a
> party assignment meant to include that party's public work efforts in
> the calendar.
>
> Here's where I need the feedback. I need to use the publish point work
> effort to party assignment ROLE to control what the servlet does. A
> party related to the publish point in role "A" is a party whose public
> work efforts are included in the calendar. A party assigned to the
> publish point in role "B" is a party whose access to the calendar is
> controlled by the publish point.

it looks like that the info at the related workeffort to the publish
point should override the info at the publish point. If the publish
point is public but the related workefffort is not then that event
should not be available.

What do you mean here with role "A" and role "B"? I am lost here

>
> Looking at the current calendar roles, we have Attendee, Delegate, Host,
> Organizer, and Owner. The Delegate role might be appropriate for the
> party in role "B". I don't know what to do about the party in role "A" -
> should I create a new role? Something like "Calendar Participant" or
> "Calendar Member"?
>
> Any feedback would be appreciated!
>
> -Adrian

--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates

[Adrian Crum-2]

Hans,

No, the internal work effort calendar and the published iCalendar might not be the same. They have different purposes.

Some examples...

1. I want to make some of my calendar available to the public. I create a publish point, make it public, and make the work efforts I want to make public children of the publish point.

2. A department wants to create a department calendar that aggregates all of the department employees' calendars. A publish point is created and the department employees are assigned to it. All of the department employees public work efforts appear on the calendar. The department calendar visibility can be controlled by the publish point's scope.

3. I have a personal calendar that I don't want public, but I have an assistant who needs to be able to update my calendar for me. I create a publish point, make it confidential, and assign my assistant to the publish point as a delegate.

I could go on. The system was designed to be flexible and meet most calendaring needs.

-Adrian

--- On Tue, 6/23/09, Hans Bakker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Hans Bakker <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: Discussion: iCalendar Integration
> To: [hidden email]
> Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 6:01 PM
> Hi Adrian,
>
> thanks first of all the work you are doing here, and
> excellent addition
> to the system. However i have the impression that not
> enough existing
> functions in ofbiz are re-used and the implementation is
> not integrated
> enough. Related to that is how this will work together with
> the calendar
> function in workeffort? In that calendar there is no
> publishpoint.
>
> In the end, the ical calendar downloaded should be the same
> as the
> workeffort calendar showed in the screens?
>
> Can you please explain what your thoughts are on this?
>
> see further my comments inline....
>
>
> On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 16:06 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
> > I'm almost ready to commit the work I have been doing
> on the iCalendar
> > integration. Before I do, I would like some feedback
> on a particular
> > function.
> >
> > Background: One work effort serves as an iCalendar
> "publish point" -
> > it's not a work effort that anyone interacts with, it
> just contains
> > settings that tell the iCalendar servlet what to do.
> In the current
> > implementation, all public work efforts of all parties
> assigned to the
> > publish point will be included in the calendar. The
> party's assignment
> > role is ignored. The publish point's scope (public,
> confidential,
> > private) is ignored. These are things I would like to
> change.
> >
> > In the new implementation, if the publish point work
> effort has a public
> > scope, then anyone can view work efforts that are
> related to it. If the
> > scope isn't public, then access to the related work
> efforts is
> > restricted to only the parties who are assigned to the
> publish point.
> > Oops, now I have a conflict with the previous
> implementation - where a
> > party assignment meant to include that party's public
> work efforts in
> > the calendar.
> >
> > Here's where I need the feedback. I need to use the
> publish point work
> > effort to party assignment ROLE to control what the
> servlet does. A
> > party related to the publish point in role "A" is a
> party whose public
> > work efforts are included in the calendar. A party
> assigned to the
> > publish point in role "B" is a party whose access to
> the calendar is
> > controlled by the publish point.
>
> it looks like that the info at the related workeffort to
> the publish
> point should override the info at the publish point. If the
> publish
> point is public but the related workefffort is not then
> that event
> should not be available.
>
> What do you mean here with role "A" and role "B"? I am lost
> here
>
> >
> > Looking at the current calendar roles, we have
> Attendee, Delegate, Host,
> > Organizer, and Owner. The Delegate role might be
> appropriate for the
> > party in role "B". I don't know what to do about the
> party in role "A" -
> > should I create a new role? Something like "Calendar
> Participant" or
> > "Calendar Member"?
> >
> > Any feedback would be appreciated!
> >
> > -Adrian
> --
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive
> rates
>
>

     

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>

> I'm almost ready to commit the work I have been doing on the iCalendar
> integration. Before I do, I would like some feedback on a particular
> function.
>
> Background: One work effort serves as an iCalendar "publish point" -
> it's not a work effort that anyone interacts with, it just contains
> settings that tell the iCalendar servlet what to do. In the current
> implementation, all public work efforts of all parties assigned to the
> publish point will be included in the calendar. The party's assignment
> role is ignored. The publish point's scope (public, confidential,
> private) is ignored. These are things I would like to change.
>
> In the new implementation, if the publish point work effort has a public
> scope, then anyone can view work efforts that are related to it. If the
> scope isn't public, then access to the related work efforts is
> restricted to only the parties who are assigned to the publish point.
> Oops, now I have a conflict with the previous implementation - where a
> party assignment meant to include that party's public work efforts in
> the calendar.
>
> Here's where I need the feedback. I need to use the publish point work
> effort to party assignment ROLE to control what the servlet does. A
> party related to the publish point in role "A" is a party whose public
> work efforts are included in the calendar. A party assigned to the
> publish point in role "B" is a party whose access to the calendar is
> controlled by the publish point.
>
> Looking at the current calendar roles, we have Attendee, Delegate, Host,
> Organizer, and Owner. The Delegate role might be appropriate for the
> party in role "B". I don't know what to do about the party in role "A" -
> should I create a new role? Something like "Calendar Participant" or
> "Calendar Member"?

I think Attendee would be good but if you need to keep it for other needs then Calendar Participant sounds good to me

My 2 cts

Jacques

 
> Any feedback would be appreciated!
>
> -Adrian
>

[Adrian Crum]

Thanks Jacques! Attendee is already defined in the RFC, so I was trying
not to use it - since that might cause confusion.

-Adrian

Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
>> I'm almost ready to commit the work I have been doing on the iCalendar
>> integration. Before I do, I would like some feedback on a particular
>> function.
>>
>> Background: One work effort serves as an iCalendar "publish point" -
>> it's not a work effort that anyone interacts with, it just contains
>> settings that tell the iCalendar servlet what to do. In the current
>> implementation, all public work efforts of all parties assigned to the
>> publish point will be included in the calendar. The party's assignment
>> role is ignored. The publish point's scope (public, confidential,
>> private) is ignored. These are things I would like to change.
>>
>> In the new implementation, if the publish point work effort has a
>> public scope, then anyone can view work efforts that are related to
>> it. If the scope isn't public, then access to the related work efforts
>> is restricted to only the parties who are assigned to the publish
>> point. Oops, now I have a conflict with the previous implementation -
>> where a party assignment meant to include that party's public work
>> efforts in the calendar.
>>
>> Here's where I need the feedback. I need to use the publish point work
>> effort to party assignment ROLE to control what the servlet does. A
>> party related to the publish point in role "A" is a party whose public
>> work efforts are included in the calendar. A party assigned to the
>> publish point in role "B" is a party whose access to the calendar is
>> controlled by the publish point.
>>
>> Looking at the current calendar roles, we have Attendee, Delegate,
>> Host, Organizer, and Owner. The Delegate role might be appropriate for
>> the party in role "B". I don't know what to do about the party in role
>> "A" - should I create a new role? Something like "Calendar
>> Participant" or "Calendar Member"?
>
> I think Attendee would be good but if you need to keep it for other
> needs then Calendar Participant sounds good to me
>
> My 2 cts
>
> Jacques
>
>
>> Any feedback would be appreciated!
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Yes I see it's used in OFBiz, but which RFC are you speaking about ?
I thought you were speaking about http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/qA8 attachment but obvisouly it's not there.

Thanks

Jacques

From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>

> Thanks Jacques! Attendee is already defined in the RFC, so I was trying
> not to use it - since that might cause confusion.
>
> -Adrian
>
> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
>>> I'm almost ready to commit the work I have been doing on the iCalendar
>>> integration. Before I do, I would like some feedback on a particular
>>> function.
>>>
>>> Background: One work effort serves as an iCalendar "publish point" -
>>> it's not a work effort that anyone interacts with, it just contains
>>> settings that tell the iCalendar servlet what to do. In the current
>>> implementation, all public work efforts of all parties assigned to the
>>> publish point will be included in the calendar. The party's assignment
>>> role is ignored. The publish point's scope (public, confidential,
>>> private) is ignored. These are things I would like to change.
>>>
>>> In the new implementation, if the publish point work effort has a
>>> public scope, then anyone can view work efforts that are related to
>>> it. If the scope isn't public, then access to the related work efforts
>>> is restricted to only the parties who are assigned to the publish
>>> point. Oops, now I have a conflict with the previous implementation -
>>> where a party assignment meant to include that party's public work
>>> efforts in the calendar.
>>>
>>> Here's where I need the feedback. I need to use the publish point work
>>> effort to party assignment ROLE to control what the servlet does. A
>>> party related to the publish point in role "A" is a party whose public
>>> work efforts are included in the calendar. A party assigned to the
>>> publish point in role "B" is a party whose access to the calendar is
>>> controlled by the publish point.
>>>
>>> Looking at the current calendar roles, we have Attendee, Delegate,
>>> Host, Organizer, and Owner. The Delegate role might be appropriate for
>>> the party in role "B". I don't know what to do about the party in role
>>> "A" - should I create a new role? Something like "Calendar
>>> Participant" or "Calendar Member"?
>>
>> I think Attendee would be good but if you need to keep it for other
>> needs then Calendar Participant sounds good to me
>>
>> My 2 cts
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>>> Any feedback would be appreciated!
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Adrian Crum]

http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2445.html


Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Yes I see it's used in OFBiz, but which RFC are you speaking about ?
> I thought you were speaking about http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/qA8 attachment
> but obvisouly it's not there.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
>> Thanks Jacques! Attendee is already defined in the RFC, so I was
>> trying not to use it - since that might cause confusion.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
>>>> I'm almost ready to commit the work I have been doing on the
>>>> iCalendar integration. Before I do, I would like some feedback on a
>>>> particular function.
>>>>
>>>> Background: One work effort serves as an iCalendar "publish point" -
>>>> it's not a work effort that anyone interacts with, it just contains
>>>> settings that tell the iCalendar servlet what to do. In the current
>>>> implementation, all public work efforts of all parties assigned to
>>>> the publish point will be included in the calendar. The party's
>>>> assignment role is ignored. The publish point's scope (public,
>>>> confidential, private) is ignored. These are things I would like to
>>>> change.
>>>>
>>>> In the new implementation, if the publish point work effort has a
>>>> public scope, then anyone can view work efforts that are related to
>>>> it. If the scope isn't public, then access to the related work
>>>> efforts is restricted to only the parties who are assigned to the
>>>> publish point. Oops, now I have a conflict with the previous
>>>> implementation - where a party assignment meant to include that
>>>> party's public work efforts in the calendar.
>>>>
>>>> Here's where I need the feedback. I need to use the publish point
>>>> work effort to party assignment ROLE to control what the servlet
>>>> does. A party related to the publish point in role "A" is a party
>>>> whose public work efforts are included in the calendar. A party
>>>> assigned to the publish point in role "B" is a party whose access to
>>>> the calendar is controlled by the publish point.
>>>>
>>>> Looking at the current calendar roles, we have Attendee, Delegate,
>>>> Host, Organizer, and Owner. The Delegate role might be appropriate
>>>> for the party in role "B". I don't know what to do about the party
>>>> in role "A" - should I create a new role? Something like "Calendar
>>>> Participant" or "Calendar Member"?
>>>
>>> I think Attendee would be good but if you need to keep it for other
>>> needs then Calendar Participant sounds good to me
>>>
>>> My 2 cts
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>>> Any feedback would be appreciated!
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

[Adrian Crum]

The improved iCalendar integration has been committed, and there is a
Wiki page: http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/piE.

I still haven't resolved the party assignment role issue, but it will be
an easy change to make once a decision is made.

-Adrian

Adrian Crum wrote:

> I'm almost ready to commit the work I have been doing on the iCalendar
> integration. Before I do, I would like some feedback on a particular
> function.
>
> Background: One work effort serves as an iCalendar "publish point" -
> it's not a work effort that anyone interacts with, it just contains
> settings that tell the iCalendar servlet what to do. In the current
> implementation, all public work efforts of all parties assigned to the
> publish point will be included in the calendar. The party's assignment
> role is ignored. The publish point's scope (public, confidential,
> private) is ignored. These are things I would like to change.
>
> In the new implementation, if the publish point work effort has a public
> scope, then anyone can view work efforts that are related to it. If the
> scope isn't public, then access to the related work efforts is
> restricted to only the parties who are assigned to the publish point.
> Oops, now I have a conflict with the previous implementation - where a
> party assignment meant to include that party's public work efforts in
> the calendar.
>
> Here's where I need the feedback. I need to use the publish point work
> effort to party assignment ROLE to control what the servlet does. A
> party related to the publish point in role "A" is a party whose public
> work efforts are included in the calendar. A party assigned to the
> publish point in role "B" is a party whose access to the calendar is
> controlled by the publish point.
>
> Looking at the current calendar roles, we have Attendee, Delegate, Host,
> Organizer, and Owner. The Delegate role might be appropriate for the
> party in role "B". I don't know what to do about the party in role "A" -
> should I create a new role? Something like "Calendar Participant" or
> "Calendar Member"?
>
> Any feedback would be appreciated!
>
> -Adrian
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks Adrian,

A lot to read tough...

Jacques

From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>

> http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2445.html
>
>
> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> Yes I see it's used in OFBiz, but which RFC are you speaking about ?
>> I thought you were speaking about http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/qA8 attachment
>> but obvisouly it's not there.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
>>> Thanks Jacques! Attendee is already defined in the RFC, so I was
>>> trying not to use it - since that might cause confusion.
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
>>>>> I'm almost ready to commit the work I have been doing on the
>>>>> iCalendar integration. Before I do, I would like some feedback on a
>>>>> particular function.
>>>>>
>>>>> Background: One work effort serves as an iCalendar "publish point" -
>>>>> it's not a work effort that anyone interacts with, it just contains
>>>>> settings that tell the iCalendar servlet what to do. In the current
>>>>> implementation, all public work efforts of all parties assigned to
>>>>> the publish point will be included in the calendar. The party's
>>>>> assignment role is ignored. The publish point's scope (public,
>>>>> confidential, private) is ignored. These are things I would like to
>>>>> change.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the new implementation, if the publish point work effort has a
>>>>> public scope, then anyone can view work efforts that are related to
>>>>> it. If the scope isn't public, then access to the related work
>>>>> efforts is restricted to only the parties who are assigned to the
>>>>> publish point. Oops, now I have a conflict with the previous
>>>>> implementation - where a party assignment meant to include that
>>>>> party's public work efforts in the calendar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's where I need the feedback. I need to use the publish point
>>>>> work effort to party assignment ROLE to control what the servlet
>>>>> does. A party related to the publish point in role "A" is a party
>>>>> whose public work efforts are included in the calendar. A party
>>>>> assigned to the publish point in role "B" is a party whose access to
>>>>> the calendar is controlled by the publish point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at the current calendar roles, we have Attendee, Delegate,
>>>>> Host, Organizer, and Owner. The Delegate role might be appropriate
>>>>> for the party in role "B". I don't know what to do about the party
>>>>> in role "A" - should I create a new role? Something like "Calendar
>>>>> Participant" or "Calendar Member"?
>>>>
>>>> I think Attendee would be good but if you need to keep it for other
>>>> needs then Calendar Participant sounds good to me
>>>>
>>>> My 2 cts
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Any feedback would be appreciated!
>>>>>
>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Torstein Hegbom]

I think it would be better to abstract the role into a group, so that the
work-effort could be published to a group. The group will have roles and the
roles will have persons. When a workeffort has been started it will not be
visible to others.

This means that the group will have a responsibility to have the work done,
and the group manager can manage the work. Then the group could have a
calendar, with skill and other functionality defined in party.

How about Timesheet-management (those persons that forgot to fill it in, and
those that has filled in too many hours by mistake, or has used wrong
workeffort in the timesheet)? I have not seen this functionality in OFBiz,
but this will be added by the work you are doing?

Torstein


-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: Adrian Crum [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sendt: 24. juni 2009 19:29
Til: [hidden email]
Emne: Re: Discussion: iCalendar Integration

The improved iCalendar integration has been committed, and there is a
Wiki page: http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/piE.

I still haven't resolved the party assignment role issue, but it will be
an easy change to make once a decision is made.

-Adrian

Adrian Crum wrote:

> I'm almost ready to commit the work I have been doing on the iCalendar
> integration. Before I do, I would like some feedback on a particular
> function.
>
> Background: One work effort serves as an iCalendar "publish point" -
> it's not a work effort that anyone interacts with, it just contains
> settings that tell the iCalendar servlet what to do. In the current
> implementation, all public work efforts of all parties assigned to the
> publish point will be included in the calendar. The party's assignment
> role is ignored. The publish point's scope (public, confidential,
> private) is ignored. These are things I would like to change.
>
> In the new implementation, if the publish point work effort has a public
> scope, then anyone can view work efforts that are related to it. If the
> scope isn't public, then access to the related work efforts is
> restricted to only the parties who are assigned to the publish point.
> Oops, now I have a conflict with the previous implementation - where a
> party assignment meant to include that party's public work efforts in
> the calendar.
>
> Here's where I need the feedback. I need to use the publish point work
> effort to party assignment ROLE to control what the servlet does. A
> party related to the publish point in role "A" is a party whose public
> work efforts are included in the calendar. A party assigned to the
> publish point in role "B" is a party whose access to the calendar is
> controlled by the publish point.
>
> Looking at the current calendar roles, we have Attendee, Delegate, Host,
> Organizer, and Owner. The Delegate role might be appropriate for the
> party in role "B". I don't know what to do about the party in role "A" -
> should I create a new role? Something like "Calendar Participant" or
> "Calendar Member"?
>
> Any feedback would be appreciated!
>
> -Adrian
>

[Adrian Crum]

What you're describing is probably handled best within the work effort
application.

The iCalendar integration is simply a means to provide work effort data
in iCalendar format for iCalendar clients to use. It is not intended to
be a project management program (which already exists in OFBiz).

-Adrian

Torstein Hegbom wrote:

> I think it would be better to abstract the role into a group, so that the
> work-effort could be published to a group. The group will have roles and the
> roles will have persons. When a workeffort has been started it will not be
> visible to others.
>
> This means that the group will have a responsibility to have the work done,
> and the group manager can manage the work. Then the group could have a
> calendar, with skill and other functionality defined in party.
>
> How about Timesheet-management (those persons that forgot to fill it in, and
> those that has filled in too many hours by mistake, or has used wrong
> workeffort in the timesheet)? I have not seen this functionality in OFBiz,
> but this will be added by the work you are doing?
>
> Torstein
>
>
> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
> Fra: Adrian Crum [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sendt: 24. juni 2009 19:29
> Til: [hidden email]
> Emne: Re: Discussion: iCalendar Integration
>
> The improved iCalendar integration has been committed, and there is a
> Wiki page: http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/piE.
>
> I still haven't resolved the party assignment role issue, but it will be
> an easy change to make once a decision is made.
>
> -Adrian
>
> Adrian Crum wrote:
>> I'm almost ready to commit the work I have been doing on the iCalendar
>> integration. Before I do, I would like some feedback on a particular
>> function.
>>
>> Background: One work effort serves as an iCalendar "publish point" -
>> it's not a work effort that anyone interacts with, it just contains
>> settings that tell the iCalendar servlet what to do. In the current
>> implementation, all public work efforts of all parties assigned to the
>> publish point will be included in the calendar. The party's assignment
>> role is ignored. The publish point's scope (public, confidential,
>> private) is ignored. These are things I would like to change.
>>
>> In the new implementation, if the publish point work effort has a public
>> scope, then anyone can view work efforts that are related to it. If the
>> scope isn't public, then access to the related work efforts is
>> restricted to only the parties who are assigned to the publish point.
>> Oops, now I have a conflict with the previous implementation - where a
>> party assignment meant to include that party's public work efforts in
>> the calendar.
>>
>> Here's where I need the feedback. I need to use the publish point work
>> effort to party assignment ROLE to control what the servlet does. A
>> party related to the publish point in role "A" is a party whose public
>> work efforts are included in the calendar. A party assigned to the
>> publish point in role "B" is a party whose access to the calendar is
>> controlled by the publish point.
>>
>> Looking at the current calendar roles, we have Attendee, Delegate, Host,
>> Organizer, and Owner. The Delegate role might be appropriate for the
>> party in role "B". I don't know what to do about the party in role "A" -
>> should I create a new role? Something like "Calendar Participant" or
>> "Calendar Member"?
>>
>> Any feedback would be appreciated!
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>
>

[hans_bakker]

Please have a look at the project manager, it is all there.....even the
invoicing of these entered hours....

On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 19:48 +0200, Torstein Hegbom wrote:
> .....
> How about Timesheet-management (those persons that forgot to fill it in, and
> those that has filled in too many hours by mistake, or has used wrong
> workeffort in the timesheet)? I have not seen this functionality in OFBiz,
> but this will be added by the work you are doing?