Need for ProductRole
Locked
12
12
 
|
I think I have a need for a ProductRole that mirrors the ContentRole
entity. I want to associate a manager with a product. Is there another way to do this? If not, should I just create such an entity for this custom use or should it be something to propose for general use? -Al |
|
|
There are Category roles. Adding a product to a
category that someone has permissions over would be generally easier to manage. Remember that catalogs don't need to be associated with product stores to be useful using custom screens and categories don't need to be associated with catalogs. --- Al Byers <[hidden email]> wrote: > I think I have a need for a ProductRole that mirrors > the ContentRole > entity. I want to associate a manager with a > product. Is there another > way to do this? If not, should I just create such an > entity for this > custom use or should it be something to propose for > general use? > > -Al > |
|
|
In reply to this post by byersa
I had suggested some time ago a ProductRelationship entity - where a product can
be related to a party, such as a manufacturer. Would something like that meet your needs? Al Byers wrote: > I think I have a need for a ProductRole that mirrors the ContentRole > entity. I want to associate a manager with a product. Is there another > way to do this? If not, should I just create such an entity for this > custom use or should it be something to propose for general use? > > -Al > |
|
|
In reply to this post by cjhowe
This probably the best pattern to use, ie Party -> ProductCategoryRole -> ProductCategoryMember -> Product The reason I say this is that the pattern is already being used for role-limited permissions in the Catalog Manager. For details see the product permission checking simple-method in ProductServices.xml. -David Chris Howe wrote: > There are Category roles. Adding a product to a > category that someone has permissions over would be > generally easier to manage. Remember that catalogs > don't need to be associated with product stores to be > useful using custom screens and categories don't need > to be associated with catalogs. > > --- Al Byers <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> I think I have a need for a ProductRole that mirrors >> the ContentRole >> entity. I want to associate a manager with a >> product. Is there another >> way to do this? If not, should I just create such an >> entity for this >> custom use or should it be something to propose for >> general use? >> >> -Al >> > |
smime.p7s (4K) |
|
In reply to this post by Adrian Crum
The manufacturer is desribed in the Product entity. The only other relationship to a product that I can think of is the supplier and that is desribed in the SupplierProduct entity. Having a product manager, again is probably managed easiest by putting the product into a productCategory and managing the productCategoryRoles on that. Outside of those relationships, can you think of another that would have to do with a product? --- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: > I had suggested some time ago a ProductRelationship > entity - where a product can > be related to a party, such as a manufacturer. Would > something like that meet > your needs? > > > Al Byers wrote: > > I think I have a need for a ProductRole that > mirrors the ContentRole > > entity. I want to associate a manager with a > product. Is there another > > way to do this? If not, should I just create such > an entity for this > > custom use or should it be something to propose > for general use? > > > > -Al > > > |
|
|
I know about the manufacturer field in the Product entity. What do you do if
there is more than one manufacturer for a product? That's the limitation that brought forth my original suggestion. Why have a dozen different entities linking products to a dozen different party roles? We could have one entity that links products to any party - regardless of their role. So, one entity could link a product to one or more suppliers, one or more manufacturers, one or more product managers, etc. It seems more flexible to me. Chris Howe wrote: > The manufacturer is desribed in the Product entity. > The only other relationship to a product that I can > think of is the supplier and that is desribed in the > SupplierProduct entity. Having a product manager, > again is probably managed easiest by putting the > product into a productCategory and managing the > productCategoryRoles on that. Outside of those > relationships, can you think of another that would > have to do with a product? > > --- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: > > >>I had suggested some time ago a ProductRelationship >>entity - where a product can >>be related to a party, such as a manufacturer. Would >>something like that meet >>your needs? >> >> >>Al Byers wrote: >> >>>I think I have a need for a ProductRole that >> >>mirrors the ContentRole >> >>>entity. I want to associate a manager with a >> >>product. Is there another >> >>>way to do this? If not, should I just create such >> >>an entity for this >> >>>custom use or should it be something to propose >> >>for general use? >> >>>-Al >>> >> > > |
|
|
why would you have more than one manufacturer for the
same product? wouldn't that make it a different product? I agree that it would be better for a more generic product role setup, but if all the roles are addressed AND it's not limiting, why go through the trouble of refactoring? --- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: > I know about the manufacturer field in the Product > entity. What do you do if > there is more than one manufacturer for a product? > That's the limitation that > brought forth my original suggestion. > > Why have a dozen different entities linking products > to a dozen different party > roles? We could have one entity that links products > to any party - regardless of > their role. > > So, one entity could link a product to one or more > suppliers, one or more > manufacturers, one or more product managers, etc. It > seems more flexible to me. > > > Chris Howe wrote: > > > The manufacturer is desribed in the Product > entity. > > The only other relationship to a product that I > can > > think of is the supplier and that is desribed in > the > > SupplierProduct entity. Having a product manager, > > again is probably managed easiest by putting the > > product into a productCategory and managing the > > productCategoryRoles on that. Outside of those > > relationships, can you think of another that would > > have to do with a product? > > > > --- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > >>I had suggested some time ago a > ProductRelationship > >>entity - where a product can > >>be related to a party, such as a manufacturer. > Would > >>something like that meet > >>your needs? > >> > >> > >>Al Byers wrote: > >> > >>>I think I have a need for a ProductRole that > >> > >>mirrors the ContentRole > >> > >>>entity. I want to associate a manager with a > >> > >>product. Is there another > >> > >>>way to do this? If not, should I just create such > >> > >>an entity for this > >> > >>>custom use or should it be something to propose > >> > >>for general use? > >> > >>>-Al > >>> > >> > > > > > |
|
|
There are many examples of standard products that can come from multiple
manufacturers. If I have a hardware store and I sell 3/4 inch galvanized pipe tees, they could come from three or four different manufacturers. Should I have a separate 3/4 inch galvanized tee product for each manufacturer? I hope not! I used the example of electronic components the last time this was discussed - the same holds true there. It IS a limitation. It will come up again, and when it does, I'll continue to make the same suggestion. Chris Howe wrote: > why would you have more than one manufacturer for the > same product? wouldn't that make it a different > product? I agree that it would be better for a more > generic product role setup, but if all the roles are > addressed AND it's not limiting, why go through the > trouble of refactoring? > > --- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: > > >>I know about the manufacturer field in the Product >>entity. What do you do if >>there is more than one manufacturer for a product? >>That's the limitation that >>brought forth my original suggestion. >> >>Why have a dozen different entities linking products >>to a dozen different party >>roles? We could have one entity that links products >>to any party - regardless of >>their role. >> >>So, one entity could link a product to one or more >>suppliers, one or more >>manufacturers, one or more product managers, etc. It >>seems more flexible to me. >> >> >>Chris Howe wrote: >> >> >>>The manufacturer is desribed in the Product >> >>entity. >> >>>The only other relationship to a product that I >> >>can >> >>>think of is the supplier and that is desribed in >> >>the >> >>>SupplierProduct entity. Having a product manager, >>>again is probably managed easiest by putting the >>>product into a productCategory and managing the >>>productCategoryRoles on that. Outside of those >>>relationships, can you think of another that would >>>have to do with a product? >>> >>>--- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I had suggested some time ago a >> >>ProductRelationship >> >>>>entity - where a product can >>>>be related to a party, such as a manufacturer. >> >>Would >> >>>>something like that meet >>>>your needs? >>>> >>>> >>>>Al Byers wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>I think I have a need for a ProductRole that >>>> >>>>mirrors the ContentRole >>>> >>>> >>>>>entity. I want to associate a manager with a >>>> >>>>product. Is there another >>>> >>>> >>>>>way to do this? If not, should I just create such >>>> >>>>an entity for this >>>> >>>> >>>>>custom use or should it be something to propose >>>> >>>>for general use? >>>> >>>> >>>>>-Al >>>>> >>>> >>> > > |
|
|
Technically, I would think you should make them two
separate products and then relate the two products as equivelents. But of course that depends on how detailed the company wants to be. Aside from making them two seperate products, you could treat the manufacturers as seperate suppliers for the same generic product. However, I can think of an example where the current structure is limiting. When the manufacturer or product line is acquired by another company. --- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: > There are many examples of standard products that > can come from multiple > manufacturers. If I have a hardware store and I sell > 3/4 inch galvanized pipe > tees, they could come from three or four different > manufacturers. Should I have > a separate 3/4 inch galvanized tee product for each > manufacturer? I hope not! I > used the example of electronic components the last > time this was discussed - the > same holds true there. > > It IS a limitation. It will come up again, and when > it does, I'll continue to > make the same suggestion. > > > Chris Howe wrote: > > > why would you have more than one manufacturer for > the > > same product? wouldn't that make it a different > > product? I agree that it would be better for a > more > > generic product role setup, but if all the roles > are > > addressed AND it's not limiting, why go through > the > > trouble of refactoring? > > > > --- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > >>I know about the manufacturer field in the Product > >>entity. What do you do if > >>there is more than one manufacturer for a product? > >>That's the limitation that > >>brought forth my original suggestion. > >> > >>Why have a dozen different entities linking > products > >>to a dozen different party > >>roles? We could have one entity that links > products > >>to any party - regardless of > >>their role. > >> > >>So, one entity could link a product to one or more > >>suppliers, one or more > >>manufacturers, one or more product managers, etc. > It > >>seems more flexible to me. > >> > >> > >>Chris Howe wrote: > >> > >> > >>>The manufacturer is desribed in the Product > >> > >>entity. > >> > >>>The only other relationship to a product that I > >> > >>can > >> > >>>think of is the supplier and that is desribed in > >> > >>the > >> > >>>SupplierProduct entity. Having a product > manager, > >>>again is probably managed easiest by putting the > >>>product into a productCategory and managing the > >>>productCategoryRoles on that. Outside of those > >>>relationships, can you think of another that > would > >>>have to do with a product? > >>> > >>>--- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>I had suggested some time ago a > >> > >>ProductRelationship > >> > >>>>entity - where a product can > >>>>be related to a party, such as a manufacturer. > >> > >>Would > >> > >>>>something like that meet > >>>>your needs? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Al Byers wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>I think I have a need for a ProductRole that > >>>> > >>>>mirrors the ContentRole > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>entity. I want to associate a manager with a > >>>> > >>>>product. Is there another > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>way to do this? If not, should I just create > such > >>>> > >>>>an entity for this > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>custom use or should it be something to propose > >>>> > >>>>for general use? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>-Al > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > > > > > |
|
|
I'm looking over David's suggestion of using ProductCategoryRole. Multiple
manufacturers could be handled that way - then just ignore the manufacturer field in Product. So, we could have a Product Category called "XYZ Manufacturing Products" then the products they manufacture could be linked to that category. The company itself can be linked to the category through the party ID in the role of manufacturer. Manufacturers and Suppliers are different parties, btw. A supplier could provide the same part from several manufacturers. Chris Howe wrote: > Technically, I would think you should make them two > separate products and then relate the two products as > equivelents. But of course that depends on how > detailed the company wants to be. Aside from making > them two seperate products, you could treat the > manufacturers as seperate suppliers for the same > generic product. > > However, I can think of an example where the current > structure is limiting. When the manufacturer or > product line is acquired by another company. > > --- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: > > >>There are many examples of standard products that >>can come from multiple >>manufacturers. If I have a hardware store and I sell >>3/4 inch galvanized pipe >>tees, they could come from three or four different >>manufacturers. Should I have >>a separate 3/4 inch galvanized tee product for each >>manufacturer? I hope not! I >>used the example of electronic components the last >>time this was discussed - the >>same holds true there. >> >>It IS a limitation. It will come up again, and when >>it does, I'll continue to >>make the same suggestion. >> >> >>Chris Howe wrote: >> >> >>>why would you have more than one manufacturer for >> >>the >> >>>same product? wouldn't that make it a different >>>product? I agree that it would be better for a >> >>more >> >>>generic product role setup, but if all the roles >> >>are >> >>>addressed AND it's not limiting, why go through >> >>the >> >>>trouble of refactoring? >>> >>>--- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I know about the manufacturer field in the Product >>>>entity. What do you do if >>>>there is more than one manufacturer for a product? >>>>That's the limitation that >>>>brought forth my original suggestion. >>>> >>>>Why have a dozen different entities linking >> >>products >> >>>>to a dozen different party >>>>roles? We could have one entity that links >> >>products >> >>>>to any party - regardless of >>>>their role. >>>> >>>>So, one entity could link a product to one or more >>>>suppliers, one or more >>>>manufacturers, one or more product managers, etc. >> >>It >> >>>>seems more flexible to me. >>>> >>>> >>>>Chris Howe wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>The manufacturer is desribed in the Product >>>> >>>>entity. >>>> >>>> >>>>>The only other relationship to a product that I >>>> >>>>can >>>> >>>> >>>>>think of is the supplier and that is desribed in >>>> >>>>the >>>> >>>> >>>>>SupplierProduct entity. Having a product >> >>manager, >> >>>>>again is probably managed easiest by putting the >>>>>product into a productCategory and managing the >>>>>productCategoryRoles on that. Outside of those >>>>>relationships, can you think of another that >> >>would >> >>>>>have to do with a product? >>>>> >>>>>--- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>I had suggested some time ago a >>>> >>>>ProductRelationship >>>> >>>> >>>>>>entity - where a product can >>>>>>be related to a party, such as a manufacturer. >>>> >>>>Would >>>> >>>> >>>>>>something like that meet >>>>>>your needs? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Al Byers wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>I think I have a need for a ProductRole that >>>>>> >>>>>>mirrors the ContentRole >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>entity. I want to associate a manager with a >>>>>> >>>>>>product. Is there another >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>way to do this? If not, should I just create >> >>such >> >>>>>>an entity for this >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>custom use or should it be something to propose >>>>>> >>>>>>for general use? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>-Al >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > > |
|
|
Yeah, ProductCategoryRole might be a good model for multiple manufacturers as well, but in a way it would be nice if it were more directly associated with a Product... so I can see that being a possible way to go as well. I guess it depends on how it would actually be used by the people and the automated processes... Is this something that anyone actually has a need and scenarios for right now? -David Adrian Crum wrote: > I'm looking over David's suggestion of using ProductCategoryRole. > Multiple manufacturers could be handled that way - then just ignore the > manufacturer field in Product. > > So, we could have a Product Category called "XYZ Manufacturing Products" > then the products they manufacture could be linked to that category. The > company itself can be linked to the category through the party ID in the > role of manufacturer. > > Manufacturers and Suppliers are different parties, btw. A supplier could > provide the same part from several manufacturers. > > > > Chris Howe wrote: > >> Technically, I would think you should make them two >> separate products and then relate the two products as >> equivelents. But of course that depends on how >> detailed the company wants to be. Aside from making >> them two seperate products, you could treat the >> manufacturers as seperate suppliers for the same >> generic product. >> >> However, I can think of an example where the current >> structure is limiting. When the manufacturer or >> product line is acquired by another company. >> >> --- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >>> There are many examples of standard products that >>> can come from multiple manufacturers. If I have a hardware store and >>> I sell >>> 3/4 inch galvanized pipe tees, they could come from three or four >>> different >>> manufacturers. Should I have a separate 3/4 inch galvanized tee >>> product for each >>> manufacturer? I hope not! I used the example of electronic components >>> the last >>> time this was discussed - the same holds true there. >>> >>> It IS a limitation. It will come up again, and when >>> it does, I'll continue to make the same suggestion. >>> >>> >>> Chris Howe wrote: >>> >>> >>>> why would you have more than one manufacturer for >>> >>> the >>> >>>> same product? wouldn't that make it a different >>>> product? I agree that it would be better for a >>> >>> more >>> >>>> generic product role setup, but if all the roles >>> >>> are >>> >>>> addressed AND it's not limiting, why go through >>> >>> the >>> >>>> trouble of refactoring? >>>> >>>> --- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I know about the manufacturer field in the Product >>>>> entity. What do you do if there is more than one manufacturer for a >>>>> product? >>>>> That's the limitation that brought forth my original suggestion. >>>>> >>>>> Why have a dozen different entities linking >>> >>> products >>> >>>>> to a dozen different party roles? We could have one entity that links >>> >>> products >>> >>>>> to any party - regardless of their role. >>>>> >>>>> So, one entity could link a product to one or more >>>>> suppliers, one or more manufacturers, one or more product managers, >>>>> etc. >>> >>> It >>> >>>>> seems more flexible to me. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Chris Howe wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The manufacturer is desribed in the Product >>>>> >>>>> entity. >>>>> >>>>>> The only other relationship to a product that I >>>>> >>>>> can >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> think of is the supplier and that is desribed in >>>>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> SupplierProduct entity. Having a product >>> >>> manager, >>> >>>>>> again is probably managed easiest by putting the >>>>>> product into a productCategory and managing the >>>>>> productCategoryRoles on that. Outside of those >>>>>> relationships, can you think of another that >>> >>> would >>> >>>>>> have to do with a product? >>>>>> >>>>>> --- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I had suggested some time ago a >>>>> >>>>> ProductRelationship >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> entity - where a product can be related to a party, such as a >>>>>>> manufacturer. >>>>> >>>>> Would >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> something like that meet your needs? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Al Byers wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think I have a need for a ProductRole that >>>>>>> >>>>>>> mirrors the ContentRole >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> entity. I want to associate a manager with a >>>>>>> >>>>>>> product. Is there another >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> way to do this? If not, should I just create >>> >>> such >>> >>>>>>> an entity for this >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> custom use or should it be something to propose >>>>>>> >>>>>>> for general use? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Al >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >> >> |
|
|
We use manufacturer information in the components that go into our homes.
For instance, one "Product" would be a bathroom sink faucet. For simplicity, we refer to it as a bathroom sink faucet - no mention of manufacturer. Depending upon the year and the current style, the bathroom sink faucet may be manufactured by different companies. This year it's Kohler, five years ago it was Price-Pfister. Our suppliers know we will accept only the the brand we use currently. So, whenever we look up bathroom sink faucet we need to know which manufacturer was used and when. If we're sticking to a single generic product, then that means we need to link it to two manufacturers. Historical information is crucial for warranty service issues. If a homeowner calls about a failed bathroom sink faucet, we can find out the manufacturer based upon the date the home was manufactured. (In real life the homeowner would just run down to Home Depot for a replacement, but the process would apply for other items.) Is this an immediate need here? No. If the capability doesn't make it into the project before I address it here, then I'll just make the mods and contribute them back. David E. Jones wrote: > > Yeah, ProductCategoryRole might be a good model for multiple > manufacturers as well, but in a way it would be nice if it were more > directly associated with a Product... so I can see that being a possible > way to go as well. I guess it depends on how it would actually be used > by the people and the automated processes... Is this something that > anyone actually has a need and scenarios for right now? > > -David > > > Adrian Crum wrote: > >> I'm looking over David's suggestion of using ProductCategoryRole. >> Multiple manufacturers could be handled that way - then just ignore >> the manufacturer field in Product. >> >> So, we could have a Product Category called "XYZ Manufacturing >> Products" then the products they manufacture could be linked to that >> category. The company itself can be linked to the category through the >> party ID in the role of manufacturer. >> >> Manufacturers and Suppliers are different parties, btw. A supplier >> could provide the same part from several manufacturers. >> >> >> >> Chris Howe wrote: >> >>> Technically, I would think you should make them two >>> separate products and then relate the two products as >>> equivelents. But of course that depends on how >>> detailed the company wants to be. Aside from making >>> them two seperate products, you could treat the >>> manufacturers as seperate suppliers for the same >>> generic product. >>> >>> However, I can think of an example where the current >>> structure is limiting. When the manufacturer or >>> product line is acquired by another company. >>> >>> --- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> There are many examples of standard products that >>>> can come from multiple manufacturers. If I have a hardware store and >>>> I sell >>>> 3/4 inch galvanized pipe tees, they could come from three or four >>>> different >>>> manufacturers. Should I have a separate 3/4 inch galvanized tee >>>> product for each >>>> manufacturer? I hope not! I used the example of electronic >>>> components the last >>>> time this was discussed - the same holds true there. >>>> >>>> It IS a limitation. It will come up again, and when >>>> it does, I'll continue to make the same suggestion. >>>> >>>> >>>> Chris Howe wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> why would you have more than one manufacturer for >>>> >>>> >>>> the >>>> >>>>> same product? wouldn't that make it a different >>>>> product? I agree that it would be better for a >>>> >>>> >>>> more >>>> >>>>> generic product role setup, but if all the roles >>>> >>>> >>>> are >>>> >>>>> addressed AND it's not limiting, why go through >>>> >>>> >>>> the >>>> >>>>> trouble of refactoring? >>>>> >>>>> --- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I know about the manufacturer field in the Product >>>>>> entity. What do you do if there is more than one manufacturer for >>>>>> a product? >>>>>> That's the limitation that brought forth my original suggestion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why have a dozen different entities linking >>>> >>>> >>>> products >>>> >>>>>> to a dozen different party roles? We could have one entity that links >>>> >>>> >>>> products >>>> >>>>>> to any party - regardless of their role. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, one entity could link a product to one or more >>>>>> suppliers, one or more manufacturers, one or more product >>>>>> managers, etc. >>>> >>>> >>>> It >>>> >>>>>> seems more flexible to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Chris Howe wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> The manufacturer is desribed in the Product >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> entity. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The only other relationship to a product that I >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> can >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> think of is the supplier and that is desribed in >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> the >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> SupplierProduct entity. Having a product >>>> >>>> >>>> manager, >>>> >>>>>>> again is probably managed easiest by putting the >>>>>>> product into a productCategory and managing the >>>>>>> productCategoryRoles on that. Outside of those >>>>>>> relationships, can you think of another that >>>> >>>> >>>> would >>>> >>>>>>> have to do with a product? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I had suggested some time ago a >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ProductRelationship >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> entity - where a product can be related to a party, such as a >>>>>>>> manufacturer. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Would >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> something like that meet your needs? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Al Byers wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think I have a need for a ProductRole that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> mirrors the ContentRole >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> entity. I want to associate a manager with a >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> product. Is there another >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> way to do this? If not, should I just create >>>> >>>> >>>> such >>>> >>>>>>>> an entity for this >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> custom use or should it be something to propose >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> for general use? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Al >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> |
|
|
It's obviously not my project, but I would think in
that scenario, were warranty information is important, you would definately want to track them as seperate products. Otherwise you're forced to create your reports by custom time periods that are more prone to innacuracy. Isn't this product already going to be serialized? If you're going to that specificity, why go back toward generics? --- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: > We use manufacturer information in the components > that go into our homes. > > For instance, one "Product" would be a bathroom sink > faucet. For simplicity, we > refer to it as a bathroom sink faucet - no mention > of manufacturer. Depending > upon the year and the current style, the bathroom > sink faucet may be > manufactured by different companies. This year it's > Kohler, five years ago > it was Price-Pfister. Our suppliers know we will > accept only the the brand we > use currently. > > So, whenever we look up bathroom sink faucet we need > to know which manufacturer > was used and when. If we're sticking to a single > generic product, then that > means we need to link it to two manufacturers. > > Historical information is crucial for warranty > service issues. If a homeowner > calls about a failed bathroom sink faucet, we can > find out the manufacturer > based upon the date the home was manufactured. (In > real life the homeowner would > just run down to Home Depot for a replacement, but > the process would apply for > other items.) > > Is this an immediate need here? No. If the > capability doesn't make it into the > project before I address it here, then I'll just > make the mods and contribute > them back. > > > David E. Jones wrote: > > > > > Yeah, ProductCategoryRole might be a good model > for multiple > > manufacturers as well, but in a way it would be > nice if it were more > > directly associated with a Product... so I can see > that being a possible > > way to go as well. I guess it depends on how it > would actually be used > > by the people and the automated processes... Is > this something that > > anyone actually has a need and scenarios for right > now? > > > > -David > > > > > > Adrian Crum wrote: > > > >> I'm looking over David's suggestion of using > ProductCategoryRole. > >> Multiple manufacturers could be handled that way > - then just ignore > >> the manufacturer field in Product. > >> > >> So, we could have a Product Category called "XYZ > Manufacturing > >> Products" then the products they manufacture > could be linked to that > >> category. The company itself can be linked to the > category through the > >> party ID in the role of manufacturer. > >> > >> Manufacturers and Suppliers are different > parties, btw. A supplier > >> could provide the same part from several > manufacturers. > >> > >> > >> > >> Chris Howe wrote: > >> > >>> Technically, I would think you should make them > two > >>> separate products and then relate the two > products as > >>> equivelents. But of course that depends on how > >>> detailed the company wants to be. Aside from > making > >>> them two seperate products, you could treat the > >>> manufacturers as seperate suppliers for the same > >>> generic product. > >>> > >>> However, I can think of an example where the > current > >>> structure is limiting. When the manufacturer or > >>> product line is acquired by another company. > >>> > >>> --- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> There are many examples of standard products > that > >>>> can come from multiple manufacturers. If I have > a hardware store and > >>>> I sell > >>>> 3/4 inch galvanized pipe tees, they could come > from three or four > >>>> different > >>>> manufacturers. Should I have a separate 3/4 > inch galvanized tee > >>>> product for each > >>>> manufacturer? I hope not! I used the example of > electronic > >>>> components the last > >>>> time this was discussed - the same holds true > there. > >>>> > >>>> It IS a limitation. It will come up again, and > when > >>>> it does, I'll continue to make the same > suggestion. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Chris Howe wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> why would you have more than one manufacturer > for > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> the > >>>> > >>>>> same product? wouldn't that make it a > different > >>>>> product? I agree that it would be better for > a > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> more > >>>> > >>>>> generic product role setup, but if all the > roles > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> are > >>>> > >>>>> addressed AND it's not limiting, why go > through > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> the > >>>> > >>>>> trouble of refactoring? > >>>>> > >>>>> --- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> I know about the manufacturer field in the > Product > >>>>>> entity. What do you do if there is more than > one manufacturer for > >>>>>> a product? > >>>>>> That's the limitation that brought forth my > original suggestion. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Why have a dozen different entities linking > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> products > >>>> > >>>>>> to a dozen different party roles? We could > have one entity that links > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> products > >>>> > >>>>>> to any party - regardless of their role. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So, one entity could link a product to one or > more > >>>>>> suppliers, one or more manufacturers, one or > more product > >>>>>> managers, etc. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> It > >>>> > >>>>>> seems more flexible to me. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Chris Howe wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> The manufacturer is desribed in the Product > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> entity. > >>>>>> > |
|
|
Faucets are not serialized.
Six purchasing clerks have memorized part numbers for commonly ordered parts. They're not going to like the idea of having to memorize new part numbers every time a manufacturer changes. Bill Of Materials use the same part numbers. Every assembly that uses a faucet would have to be changed when the manufacturer changes. I view the manufacturer of a component as a kind of meta data - not worth creating a separate product for. Chris Howe wrote: > It's obviously not my project, but I would think in > that scenario, were warranty information is important, > you would definately want to track them as seperate > products. Otherwise you're forced to create your > reports by custom time periods that are more prone to > innacuracy. Isn't this product already going to be > serialized? If you're going to that specificity, why > go back toward generics? > > --- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: > > >>We use manufacturer information in the components >>that go into our homes. >> >>For instance, one "Product" would be a bathroom sink >>faucet. For simplicity, we >>refer to it as a bathroom sink faucet - no mention >>of manufacturer. Depending >>upon the year and the current style, the bathroom >>sink faucet may be >>manufactured by different companies. This year it's >>Kohler, five years ago >>it was Price-Pfister. Our suppliers know we will >>accept only the the brand we >>use currently. >> >>So, whenever we look up bathroom sink faucet we need >>to know which manufacturer >>was used and when. If we're sticking to a single >>generic product, then that >>means we need to link it to two manufacturers. >> >>Historical information is crucial for warranty >>service issues. If a homeowner >>calls about a failed bathroom sink faucet, we can >>find out the manufacturer >>based upon the date the home was manufactured. (In >>real life the homeowner would >>just run down to Home Depot for a replacement, but >>the process would apply for >>other items.) >> >>Is this an immediate need here? No. If the >>capability doesn't make it into the >>project before I address it here, then I'll just >>make the mods and contribute >>them back. >> >> >>David E. Jones wrote: >> >> >>>Yeah, ProductCategoryRole might be a good model >> >>for multiple >> >>>manufacturers as well, but in a way it would be >> >>nice if it were more >> >>>directly associated with a Product... so I can see >> >>that being a possible >> >>>way to go as well. I guess it depends on how it >> >>would actually be used >> >>>by the people and the automated processes... Is >> >>this something that >> >>>anyone actually has a need and scenarios for right >> >>now? >> >>>-David >>> >>> >>>Adrian Crum wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I'm looking over David's suggestion of using >> >>ProductCategoryRole. >> >>>>Multiple manufacturers could be handled that way >> >>- then just ignore >> >>>>the manufacturer field in Product. >>>> >>>>So, we could have a Product Category called "XYZ >> >>Manufacturing >> >>>>Products" then the products they manufacture >> >>could be linked to that >> >>>>category. The company itself can be linked to the >> >>category through the >> >>>>party ID in the role of manufacturer. >>>> >>>>Manufacturers and Suppliers are different >> >>parties, btw. A supplier >> >>>>could provide the same part from several >> >>manufacturers. >> >>>> >>>> >>>>Chris Howe wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Technically, I would think you should make them >> >>two >> >>>>>separate products and then relate the two >> >>products as >> >>>>>equivelents. But of course that depends on how >>>>>detailed the company wants to be. Aside from >> >>making >> >>>>>them two seperate products, you could treat the >>>>>manufacturers as seperate suppliers for the same >>>>>generic product. >>>>> >>>>>However, I can think of an example where the >> >>current >> >>>>>structure is limiting. When the manufacturer or >>>>>product line is acquired by another company. >>>>> >>>>>--- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>There are many examples of standard products >> >>that >> >>>>>>can come from multiple manufacturers. If I have >> >>a hardware store and >> >>>>>>I sell >>>>>>3/4 inch galvanized pipe tees, they could come >> >>from three or four >> >>>>>>different >>>>>>manufacturers. Should I have a separate 3/4 >> >>inch galvanized tee >> >>>>>>product for each >>>>>>manufacturer? I hope not! I used the example of >> >>electronic >> >>>>>>components the last >>>>>>time this was discussed - the same holds true >> >>there. >> >>>>>>It IS a limitation. It will come up again, and >> >>when >> >>>>>>it does, I'll continue to make the same >> >>suggestion. >> >>>>>> >>>>>>Chris Howe wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>why would you have more than one manufacturer >> >>for >> >>>>>> >>>>>>the >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>same product? wouldn't that make it a >> >>different >> >>>>>>>product? I agree that it would be better for >> >>a >> >>>>>> >>>>>>more >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>generic product role setup, but if all the >> >>roles >> >>>>>> >>>>>>are >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>addressed AND it's not limiting, why go >> >>through >> >>>>>> >>>>>>the >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>trouble of refactoring? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>--- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I know about the manufacturer field in the >> >>Product >> >>>>>>>>entity. What do you do if there is more than >> >>one manufacturer for >> >>>>>>>>a product? >>>>>>>>That's the limitation that brought forth my >> >>original suggestion. >> >>>>>>>>Why have a dozen different entities linking >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>products >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>to a dozen different party roles? We could >> >>have one entity that links >> >>>>>> >>>>>>products >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>to any party - regardless of their role. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>So, one entity could link a product to one or >> >>more >> >>>>>>>>suppliers, one or more manufacturers, one or >> >>more product >> >>>>>>>>managers, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>It >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>seems more flexible to me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Chris Howe wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The manufacturer is desribed in the Product >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>entity. >>>>>>>> >> > === message truncated === > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by David E Jones-2
This is how I pictured my initial idea:
ProductRelationship Entity -------------------------- ProductId PartyRoleId PartyId Product ProductRelationship Party -------- -------------------- ----------------------- _ SUPPLIER_ROLE ABC Materials Supply Widget _/_ MANUFACT_ROLE XYZ Manufacturing \_ CONSUMER_ROLE Lillian Gomez So, any number of parties in any number of roles can be associated with a product. David E. Jones wrote: > > Yeah, ProductCategoryRole might be a good model for multiple > manufacturers as well, but in a way it would be nice if it were more > directly associated with a Product... so I can see that being a possible > way to go as well. I guess it depends on how it would actually be used > by the people and the automated processes... Is this something that > anyone actually has a need and scenarios for right now? > > -David > > > Adrian Crum wrote: > >> I'm looking over David's suggestion of using ProductCategoryRole. >> Multiple manufacturers could be handled that way - then just ignore >> the manufacturer field in Product. >> >> So, we could have a Product Category called "XYZ Manufacturing >> Products" then the products they manufacture could be linked to that >> category. The company itself can be linked to the category through the >> party ID in the role of manufacturer. >> >> Manufacturers and Suppliers are different parties, btw. A supplier >> could provide the same part from several manufacturers. >> >> >> >> Chris Howe wrote: >> >>> Technically, I would think you should make them two >>> separate products and then relate the two products as >>> equivelents. But of course that depends on how >>> detailed the company wants to be. Aside from making >>> them two seperate products, you could treat the >>> manufacturers as seperate suppliers for the same >>> generic product. >>> >>> However, I can think of an example where the current >>> structure is limiting. When the manufacturer or >>> product line is acquired by another company. >>> >>> --- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> There are many examples of standard products that >>>> can come from multiple manufacturers. If I have a hardware store and >>>> I sell >>>> 3/4 inch galvanized pipe tees, they could come from three or four >>>> different >>>> manufacturers. Should I have a separate 3/4 inch galvanized tee >>>> product for each >>>> manufacturer? I hope not! I used the example of electronic >>>> components the last >>>> time this was discussed - the same holds true there. >>>> >>>> It IS a limitation. It will come up again, and when >>>> it does, I'll continue to make the same suggestion. >>>> >>>> >>>> Chris Howe wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> why would you have more than one manufacturer for >>>> >>>> >>>> the >>>> >>>>> same product? wouldn't that make it a different >>>>> product? I agree that it would be better for a >>>> >>>> >>>> more >>>> >>>>> generic product role setup, but if all the roles >>>> >>>> >>>> are >>>> >>>>> addressed AND it's not limiting, why go through >>>> >>>> >>>> the >>>> >>>>> trouble of refactoring? >>>>> >>>>> --- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I know about the manufacturer field in the Product >>>>>> entity. What do you do if there is more than one manufacturer for >>>>>> a product? >>>>>> That's the limitation that brought forth my original suggestion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why have a dozen different entities linking >>>> >>>> >>>> products >>>> >>>>>> to a dozen different party roles? We could have one entity that links >>>> >>>> >>>> products >>>> >>>>>> to any party - regardless of their role. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, one entity could link a product to one or more >>>>>> suppliers, one or more manufacturers, one or more product >>>>>> managers, etc. >>>> >>>> >>>> It >>>> >>>>>> seems more flexible to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Chris Howe wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> The manufacturer is desribed in the Product >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> entity. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The only other relationship to a product that I >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> can >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> think of is the supplier and that is desribed in >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> the >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> SupplierProduct entity. Having a product >>>> >>>> >>>> manager, >>>> >>>>>>> again is probably managed easiest by putting the >>>>>>> product into a productCategory and managing the >>>>>>> productCategoryRoles on that. Outside of those >>>>>>> relationships, can you think of another that >>>> >>>> >>>> would >>>> >>>>>>> have to do with a product? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I had suggested some time ago a >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ProductRelationship >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> entity - where a product can be related to a party, such as a >>>>>>>> manufacturer. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Would >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> something like that meet your needs? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Al Byers wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think I have a need for a ProductRole that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> mirrors the ContentRole >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> entity. I want to associate a manager with a >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> product. Is there another >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> way to do this? If not, should I just create >>>> >>>> >>>> such >>>> >>>>>>>> an entity for this >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> custom use or should it be something to propose >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> for general use? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Al >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> |
|
|
In reply to this post by Adrian Crum
Without getting into the lack of control that exists
when honoring warranties on unserializable product (that is of concern to the mfg, not your project), you would probably want to utilize the internal name in the BOM instead of the productId. In many scenarios, the productId shouldn't be the basis of an order entry. The only reason why I'm suggesting is that you're considering it as mutually exclusive alternatives. When there's a solution that encompases the best of both worlds. Namely, simplification for the purchasing clerks, and accuracy in your purchasing history. --- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: > Faucets are not serialized. > > Six purchasing clerks have memorized part numbers > for commonly ordered parts. > They're not going to like the idea of having to > memorize new part numbers every > time a manufacturer changes. > > Bill Of Materials use the same part numbers. Every > assembly that uses a faucet > would have to be changed when the manufacturer > changes. > > I view the manufacturer of a component as a kind of > meta data - not worth > creating a separate product for. > > > Chris Howe wrote: > > > It's obviously not my project, but I would think > in > > that scenario, were warranty information is > important, > > you would definately want to track them as > seperate > > products. Otherwise you're forced to create your > > reports by custom time periods that are more prone > to > > innacuracy. Isn't this product already going to > be > > serialized? If you're going to that specificity, > why > > go back toward generics? > > > > --- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > >>We use manufacturer information in the components > >>that go into our homes. > >> > >>For instance, one "Product" would be a bathroom > sink > >>faucet. For simplicity, we > >>refer to it as a bathroom sink faucet - no mention > >>of manufacturer. Depending > >>upon the year and the current style, the bathroom > >>sink faucet may be > >>manufactured by different companies. This year > it's > >>Kohler, five years ago > >>it was Price-Pfister. Our suppliers know we will > >>accept only the the brand we > >>use currently. > >> > >>So, whenever we look up bathroom sink faucet we > need > >>to know which manufacturer > >>was used and when. If we're sticking to a single > >>generic product, then that > >>means we need to link it to two manufacturers. > >> > >>Historical information is crucial for warranty > >>service issues. If a homeowner > >>calls about a failed bathroom sink faucet, we can > >>find out the manufacturer > >>based upon the date the home was manufactured. (In > >>real life the homeowner would > >>just run down to Home Depot for a replacement, but > >>the process would apply for > >>other items.) > >> > >>Is this an immediate need here? No. If the > >>capability doesn't make it into the > >>project before I address it here, then I'll just > >>make the mods and contribute > >>them back. > >> > >> > >>David E. Jones wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Yeah, ProductCategoryRole might be a good model > >> > >>for multiple > >> > >>>manufacturers as well, but in a way it would be > >> > >>nice if it were more > >> > >>>directly associated with a Product... so I can > see > >> > >>that being a possible > >> > >>>way to go as well. I guess it depends on how it > >> > >>would actually be used > >> > >>>by the people and the automated processes... Is > >> > >>this something that > >> > >>>anyone actually has a need and scenarios for > right > >> > >>now? > >> > >>>-David > >>> > >>> > >>>Adrian Crum wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>I'm looking over David's suggestion of using > >> > >>ProductCategoryRole. > >> > >>>>Multiple manufacturers could be handled that way > >> > >>- then just ignore > >> > >>>>the manufacturer field in Product. > >>>> > >>>>So, we could have a Product Category called "XYZ > >> > >>Manufacturing > >> > >>>>Products" then the products they manufacture > >> > >>could be linked to that > >> > >>>>category. The company itself can be linked to > the > >> > >>category through the > >> > >>>>party ID in the role of manufacturer. > >>>> > >>>>Manufacturers and Suppliers are different > >> > >>parties, btw. A supplier > >> > >>>>could provide the same part from several > >> > >>manufacturers. > >> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Chris Howe wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Technically, I would think you should make them > >> > >>two > >> > >>>>>separate products and then relate the two > >> > >>products as > >> > >>>>>equivelents. But of course that depends on how > >>>>>detailed the company wants to be. Aside from > >> > >>making > >> > >>>>>them two seperate products, you could treat the > >>>>>manufacturers as seperate suppliers for the > same > >>>>>generic product. > >>>>> > >>>>>However, I can think of an example where the > >> > >>current > >> > >>>>>structure is limiting. When the manufacturer > or > >>>>>product line is acquired by another company. > >>>>> > >>>>>--- Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>There are many examples of standard products > >> > >>that > >> > >>>>>>can come from multiple manufacturers. If I > have > >> > >>a hardware store and > >> > >>>>>>I sell > >>>>>>3/4 inch galvanized pipe tees, they could come > >> > >>from three or four > >> > >>>>>>different > >>>>>>manufacturers. Should I have a separate 3/4 > >> > >>inch galvanized tee > >> > |
|
|
In reply to this post by David E Jones-2
Hi David,
I can't see how to set this I'm afraid. There doesn't seem to be a ProductCategoryRole tab in the party manager. Is this done in Webtools? How would this be done? I am curious as we had a requirement to do this a while ago but it was delayed and it might be a quick fix now. Very best wishes Ian On Mon, July 10, 2006 17:54, David E. Jones wrote: > > This probably the best pattern to use, ie Party -> ProductCategoryRole -> ProductCategoryMember > -> Product > > > The reason I say this is that the pattern is already being used for role-limited permissions in > the Catalog Manager. For details see the product permission checking simple-method in > ProductServices.xml. > > > -David > > > > Chris Howe wrote: > >> There are Category roles. Adding a product to a >> category that someone has permissions over would be generally easier to manage. Remember that >> catalogs don't need to be associated with product stores to be useful using custom screens and >> categories don't need to be associated with catalogs. >> >> --- Al Byers <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >>> I think I have a need for a ProductRole that mirrors >>> the ContentRole entity. I want to associate a manager with a product. Is there another way to do >>> this? If not, should I just create such an entity for this custom use or should it be something >>> to propose for general use? >>> >>> -Al >>> >>> >> > -- Ian Gilbert www.ethicalshopper.net Fair trade: the alternative choice for your everyday shopping 0845 456 2429 WHAT DO YOU DRINK AT WORK? We can supply your organisation with high quality fair trade tea and coffee. Discounts are available for regular orders. Contact us for more details. |
|
|
Hi Ian
It looks like the role is set on the category admin page in the Catalog App. i.e. https://localhost:8443/catalog/control/EditCategoryParties?productCategoryId=101 Regards Scott Ian Gilbert wrote: > Hi David, > > I can't see how to set this I'm afraid. There doesn't seem to be a ProductCategoryRole tab in the > party manager. Is this done in Webtools? How would this be done? > > I am curious as we had a requirement to do this a while ago but it was delayed and it might be a > quick fix now. > > Very best wishes > > Ian > > > On Mon, July 10, 2006 17:54, David E. Jones wrote: > > > >> This probably the best pattern to use, ie Party -> ProductCategoryRole -> ProductCategoryMember >> -> Product >> >> >> The reason I say this is that the pattern is already being used for role-limited permissions in >> the Catalog Manager. For details see the product permission checking simple-method in >> ProductServices.xml. >> >> >> -David >> >> >> >> Chris Howe wrote: >> >> >>> There are Category roles. Adding a product to a >>> category that someone has permissions over would be generally easier to manage. Remember that >>> catalogs don't need to be associated with product stores to be useful using custom screens and >>> categories don't need to be associated with catalogs. >>> >>> --- Al Byers <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> I think I have a need for a ProductRole that mirrors >>>> the ContentRole entity. I want to associate a manager with a product. Is there another way to do >>>> this? If not, should I just create such an entity for this custom use or should it be something >>>> to propose for general use? >>>> >>>> -Al >>>> >>>> >>>> > > > |
|
|
Thanks Scott,
Is this using the 'Parties' tab? This doesn't actually seem to do anything or am I missing something? There is also a 'Parties' tab on the catalog admin page. Would 'ProductServices.xml' require modification for this to work? To clarify the objective is to make only certain products (or categories of products or catalogs) available to certain users. I think that these should be invisible and not appear if they are not available to the user but any granular level (e.g. unless the customer was associated with the product then they couldn't purchase it although they may be able to buy it). I am looking to test this feature if it exists (and document it). Thanks and best wishes Ian On Tue, July 11, 2006 10:27, Scott Gray wrote: > Hi Ian > > > It looks like the role is set on the category admin page in the Catalog App. > i.e. https://localhost:8443/catalog/control/EditCategoryParties?productCategoryId=101 > > > Regards > Scott > > > Ian Gilbert wrote: > >> Hi David, >> >> >> I can't see how to set this I'm afraid. There doesn't seem to be a ProductCategoryRole tab in >> the party manager. Is this done in Webtools? How would this be done? >> >> I am curious as we had a requirement to do this a while ago but it was delayed and it might be >> a quick fix now. >> >> Very best wishes >> >> >> Ian >> >> >> >> On Mon, July 10, 2006 17:54, David E. Jones wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> This probably the best pattern to use, ie Party -> ProductCategoryRole -> >>> ProductCategoryMember >>> -> Product >>> >>> >>> >>> The reason I say this is that the pattern is already being used for role-limited permissions >>> in the Catalog Manager. For details see the product permission checking simple-method in >>> ProductServices.xml. >>> >>> >>> >>> -David >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Chris Howe wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> There are Category roles. Adding a product to a >>>> category that someone has permissions over would be generally easier to manage. Remember >>>> that catalogs don't need to be associated with product stores to be useful using custom >>>> screens and categories don't need to be associated with catalogs. >>>> >>>> --- Al Byers <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I think I have a need for a ProductRole that mirrors >>>>> the ContentRole entity. I want to associate a manager with a product. Is there another way >>>>> to do this? If not, should I just create such an entity for this custom use or should it >>>>> be something to propose for general use? >>>>> >>>>> -Al >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >> >> > -- Ian Gilbert www.ethicalshopper.net Fair trade: the alternative choice for your everyday shopping 0845 456 2429 WHAT DO YOU DRINK AT WORK? We can supply your organisation with high quality fair trade tea and coffee. Discounts are available for regular orders. Contact us for more details. |
|
|
Hi Ian
Sorry afraid I can't help, all I knew was where the screen the others were talking about lives. Regards Scott Ian Gilbert wrote: > Thanks Scott, > > Is this using the 'Parties' tab? This doesn't actually seem to do anything or am I missing > something? There is also a 'Parties' tab on the catalog admin page. Would 'ProductServices.xml' > require modification for this to work? To clarify the objective is to make only certain products > (or categories of products or catalogs) available to certain users. I think that these should be > invisible and not appear if they are not available to the user but any granular level (e.g. unless > the customer was associated with the product then they couldn't purchase it although they may be > able to buy it). I am looking to test this feature if it exists (and document it). > > Thanks and best wishes > > Ian > > > On Tue, July 11, 2006 10:27, Scott Gray wrote: > >> Hi Ian >> >> >> It looks like the role is set on the category admin page in the Catalog App. >> i.e. https://localhost:8443/catalog/control/EditCategoryParties?productCategoryId=101 >> >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> >> Ian Gilbert wrote: >> >> >>> Hi David, >>> >>> >>> I can't see how to set this I'm afraid. There doesn't seem to be a ProductCategoryRole tab in >>> the party manager. Is this done in Webtools? How would this be done? >>> >>> I am curious as we had a requirement to do this a while ago but it was delayed and it might be >>> a quick fix now. >>> >>> Very best wishes >>> >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, July 10, 2006 17:54, David E. Jones wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> This probably the best pattern to use, ie Party -> ProductCategoryRole -> >>>> ProductCategoryMember >>>> -> Product >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The reason I say this is that the pattern is already being used for role-limited permissions >>>> in the Catalog Manager. For details see the product permission checking simple-method in >>>> ProductServices.xml. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -David >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Chris Howe wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> There are Category roles. Adding a product to a >>>>> category that someone has permissions over would be generally easier to manage. Remember >>>>> that catalogs don't need to be associated with product stores to be useful using custom >>>>> screens and categories don't need to be associated with catalogs. >>>>> >>>>> --- Al Byers <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I think I have a need for a ProductRole that mirrors >>>>>> the ContentRole entity. I want to associate a manager with a product. Is there another way >>>>>> to do this? If not, should I just create such an entity for this custom use or should it >>>>>> be something to propose for general use? >>>>>> >>>>>> -Al >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>> > > > |
«
Return to OFBiz - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |