[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14282619#comment-14282619 ]
Adrian Crum commented on OFBIZ-5959:
------------------------------------
I believe my comment on the mailing list has been misunderstood. The point I was making is this: In the PartyRelationship entity, the partyRelationshipTypeId field is optional - because the "from" and "to" party roles are enough to describe the party relationship. That conversation has nothing to do with this issue.
I am not opposed to this issue, and my comments in it were merely meant to warn everyone that this will be a big change.
I agree that the original intent of the PartyRole entity (as expressed in the DMRB) has been lost, and currently the entity is being used in another way. The current use of the entity is more like David Hay's XxxConstraint entities (Enterprise Model Patterns) - where the fk relationships to PartyRole are used to constrain how a party is related to various things. In practice, this fk relationship becomes cumbersome, and I have suggested in the past that we remove those fk relationships.
> Add lifespan fields to PartyRole
> --------------------------------
>
> Key: OFBIZ-5959
> URL:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: party
> Affects Versions: Trunk
> Reporter: Pierre Smits
> Labels: role, roles
>
> Currently the assignments of roles to parties are boolean (there or not there).
> However, these role assignments also have a lifespan. This can be achieved by adding fromDate and thruDate fields.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
Locked
