[jira] Created: (OFBIZ-149) Better describe complex party relationships
Locked
12
12
[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-149) Better describe complex party relationships
 
|
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-149?page=comments#action_12427710 ]
Chris Howe commented on OFBIZ-149: ---------------------------------- Back to the PartyGroup confussion. I misspoke again The only way to define Party Group membership is through PartyRelationship. So we're talking about the same thing. Except that you're suggesting assigning this partyRelationshipId to a PartyGroup as an INFORMAL_GROUP type. I just find it unncessary for this relationship to have a partyId of its own. Implementing it where your suggesting ends up being the same implementation point as I've suggested, except I'd like to eliminate the need for relationship direction, I guess would be a fair summary. > Better describe complex party relationships > ------------------------------------------- > > Key: OFBIZ-149 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-149 > Project: OFBiz (The Open for Business Project) > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: party > Reporter: Chris Howe > Assigned To: David E. Jones > Attachments: PartyRelationship.patch > > > Change to the party data model to support relationships where parties act in several capacities (roles) and allowing polynary relationships. > If someone could describe a situation where the direcition of the role matters (partyIdTo/partyIdFrom) and where the roleType is insuficient to understand the direction I will try to come up with a solution. I'm trying to understand if simply better role designations would alleviate ambiguity or if there is a real need to support direction. > I began a discussion on this topic, there has yet to be any response > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ofbiz-dev/200608.mbox/%3c20060809155147.18528.qmail@...%3e -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira |
[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-149) Better describe complex party relationships
|
|
In reply to this post by Nicolas Malin (Jira)
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-149?page=comments#action_12427711 ]
Daniel Kunkel commented on OFBIZ-149: ------------------------------------- Chris I'm sorry my example wasn't adequate. I like the simplicity and power of this system, and that it doesn't directionality. I don't like that non intentional and duplicate relationships can be created as more relationships are combined. I see this as therefore being a dangerous feature to adopt. Any thoughts? > Better describe complex party relationships > ------------------------------------------- > > Key: OFBIZ-149 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-149 > Project: OFBiz (The Open for Business Project) > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: party > Reporter: Chris Howe > Assigned To: David E. Jones > Attachments: PartyRelationship.patch > > > Change to the party data model to support relationships where parties act in several capacities (roles) and allowing polynary relationships. > If someone could describe a situation where the direcition of the role matters (partyIdTo/partyIdFrom) and where the roleType is insuficient to understand the direction I will try to come up with a solution. I'm trying to understand if simply better role designations would alleviate ambiguity or if there is a real need to support direction. > I began a discussion on this topic, there has yet to be any response > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ofbiz-dev/200608.mbox/%3c20060809155147.18528.qmail@...%3e -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira |
[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-149) Better describe complex party relationships
|
|
In reply to this post by Nicolas Malin (Jira)
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-149?page=comments#action_12427712 ]
Chris Howe commented on OFBIZ-149: ---------------------------------- LOL... I keep rethinking this... For my business story, I can accomplish it with what is in the current system by using the Party Group and creating a view-entity of PartyRelationship to PartyRelationship with complex alias that effectively swap the direction so that you end up as a view what Scot Grey suggested with ECA. The question now remains, does direction provide any information about the relationship to warrant the confusion? > Better describe complex party relationships > ------------------------------------------- > > Key: OFBIZ-149 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-149 > Project: OFBiz (The Open for Business Project) > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: party > Reporter: Chris Howe > Assigned To: David E. Jones > Attachments: PartyRelationship.patch > > > Change to the party data model to support relationships where parties act in several capacities (roles) and allowing polynary relationships. > If someone could describe a situation where the direcition of the role matters (partyIdTo/partyIdFrom) and where the roleType is insuficient to understand the direction I will try to come up with a solution. I'm trying to understand if simply better role designations would alleviate ambiguity or if there is a real need to support direction. > I began a discussion on this topic, there has yet to be any response > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ofbiz-dev/200608.mbox/%3c20060809155147.18528.qmail@...%3e -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira |
[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-149) Better describe complex party relationships
|
|
In reply to this post by Nicolas Malin (Jira)
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-149?page=comments#action_12427718 ]
Chris Howe commented on OFBIZ-149: ---------------------------------- Daniel, Perhaps I'm not thinking hard enough, but I can't come up with a scenario where you'd have unintentional or duplicate relationships. If you have an unintential relationship then it wasn't modeled correctly. Either it should have been two different PartyRelationships with different partyRelationshipTypes or it should have been one PartyRelationship and one OrderRole, ContentRole, ProductRole, etc > Better describe complex party relationships > ------------------------------------------- > > Key: OFBIZ-149 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-149 > Project: OFBiz (The Open for Business Project) > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: party > Reporter: Chris Howe > Assigned To: David E. Jones > Attachments: PartyRelationship.patch > > > Change to the party data model to support relationships where parties act in several capacities (roles) and allowing polynary relationships. > If someone could describe a situation where the direcition of the role matters (partyIdTo/partyIdFrom) and where the roleType is insuficient to understand the direction I will try to come up with a solution. I'm trying to understand if simply better role designations would alleviate ambiguity or if there is a real need to support direction. > I began a discussion on this topic, there has yet to be any response > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ofbiz-dev/200608.mbox/%3c20060809155147.18528.qmail@...%3e -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira |
[jira] Updated: (OFBIZ-149) Better describe complex party relationships
|
|
In reply to this post by Nicolas Malin (Jira)
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-149?page=all ]
Chris Howe updated OFBIZ-149: ----------------------------- Attachment: necessaryChangeLog.txt file: necessaryChangeLog.txt After really thinking it over, I've concluded to myself that a polynary relationship or a binary relationship where one party acts in multiple, specific roles or a combination thereof is in fact something different from a party group. While it is possible to hack OFBiz for my current business needs, I don't feel that will always be the case as my users become more and more creative in their uses of OFBiz as an ERP system and will only cause more dificult integrations in the future. Additionaly the complexity that is shown throughout the code and the use of an unknown, inconsistantly followed and apparently arbitrary convention warrants getting rid of the direction associated with relationships. However, there will be a field present to allow for this constraint if necessary (PartyRelationshipRole.directionId) and will be used in the applications that are currently calling for it in specific instances (ie TaxAuthorityServices.getTaxAdjustments) These services will most likely drop the need for direction, but I feel that is outside the scope of this proposed improvement as it requires business logic consideration. Outlined is the result of files and sections that would need to be looked at closer as to how they would need to interact with the proposed change. This was compiled by doing a search of the Applications directory for "PartyRelationship" (case insensitve) and ignoring results of PartyRelationshipType by hand. Each of these TODOs need to look a step lower in the hierarchy (and then again lower if necessary) to ensure a change made won't effect their functionality. If there are any that someone feels I missed, please let me know. > Better describe complex party relationships > ------------------------------------------- > > Key: OFBIZ-149 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-149 > Project: OFBiz (The Open for Business Project) > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: party > Reporter: Chris Howe > Assigned To: David E. Jones > Attachments: necessaryChangeLog.txt, PartyRelationship.patch > > > Change to the party data model to support relationships where parties act in several capacities (roles) and allowing polynary relationships. > If someone could describe a situation where the direcition of the role matters (partyIdTo/partyIdFrom) and where the roleType is insuficient to understand the direction I will try to come up with a solution. I'm trying to understand if simply better role designations would alleviate ambiguity or if there is a real need to support direction. > I began a discussion on this topic, there has yet to be any response > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ofbiz-dev/200608.mbox/%3c20060809155147.18528.qmail@...%3e -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira |
[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-149) Better describe complex party relationships
|
|
In reply to this post by Nicolas Malin (Jira)
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-149?page=comments#action_12442201 ]
Chris Howe commented on OFBIZ-149: ---------------------------------- [[ Old comment, sent by email on Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:07:12 -0700 (PDT) ]] I'm replying to the mailing list instead of commenting on the JIRA as it addresses issues much broader than the scope of the JIRA and I know you're busy and I would like feedback from others on the list as well. Chris: do you by change have a copy of "The Data Model Resource Book, Revised Edition, Volume 1"? That might be the best source, and most effective for everyone, of information about these structures. I've been meaning to check it out. However I think the questions I'm raising here and the questions I've raised in the past regarding the data layer are relevent. If the structure that is in place for these things is supported by The Data Model Resource Book, then I think we need to recognize that The Data Model Resource Book is a good starting point, but not quite generic enough for an international, open source, community driven, ERP project. "ERP" is supposed to conceptualize that data be stored in a manner that allows the enterprise to utilize the data without consideration of the initial purpose of the data's input. So, if a PartyRelationship can be described just as effectively using the PartyGroup and PartyGroupRole (as it can be described as a PartyGroup of two parties who each act in a single role), why would you want to describe it in a manner that limits the data's utilization to the initial purpose of the input? --- "David E. Jones (JIRA)" <[hidden email]> wrote: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-149?page=comments#action_12427669 http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ofbiz-dev/200608.mbox/%3c20060809155147.18528.qmail@...%3e http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa > Better describe complex party relationships > ------------------------------------------- > > Key: OFBIZ-149 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-149 > Project: OFBiz (The Open for Business Project) > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: party > Reporter: Chris Howe > Assigned To: David E. Jones > Attachments: necessaryChangeLog.txt, PartyRelationship.patch > > > Change to the party data model to support relationships where parties act in several capacities (roles) and allowing polynary relationships. > If someone could describe a situation where the direcition of the role matters (partyIdTo/partyIdFrom) and where the roleType is insuficient to understand the direction I will try to come up with a solution. I'm trying to understand if simply better role designations would alleviate ambiguity or if there is a real need to support direction. > I began a discussion on this topic, there has yet to be any response > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ofbiz-dev/200608.mbox/%3c20060809155147.18528.qmail@...%3e -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira |
[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-149) Better describe complex party relationships
|
|
In reply to this post by Nicolas Malin (Jira)
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-149?page=comments#action_12443792 ]
Marco Risaliti commented on OFBIZ-149: -------------------------------------- Does this issue can be closed ? Thanks Marco > Better describe complex party relationships > ------------------------------------------- > > Key: OFBIZ-149 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-149 > Project: OFBiz (The Open for Business Project) > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: party > Reporter: Chris Howe > Assigned To: David E. Jones > Attachments: necessaryChangeLog.txt, PartyRelationship.patch > > > Change to the party data model to support relationships where parties act in several capacities (roles) and allowing polynary relationships. > If someone could describe a situation where the direcition of the role matters (partyIdTo/partyIdFrom) and where the roleType is insuficient to understand the direction I will try to come up with a solution. I'm trying to understand if simply better role designations would alleviate ambiguity or if there is a real need to support direction. > I began a discussion on this topic, there has yet to be any response > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ofbiz-dev/200608.mbox/%3c20060809155147.18528.qmail@...%3e -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira |
[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-149) Better describe complex party relationships
|
|
In reply to this post by Nicolas Malin (Jira)
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-149?page=comments#action_12443839 ]
Chris Howe commented on OFBIZ-149: ---------------------------------- No. I have this working quite nicely in our company's installation, I just need to find the time to seperate it into it's own patch and add the constraints that will allow constraining the number of times a roleTypeId can be associated. > Better describe complex party relationships > ------------------------------------------- > > Key: OFBIZ-149 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-149 > Project: OFBiz (The Open for Business Project) > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: party > Reporter: Chris Howe > Assigned To: David E. Jones > Attachments: necessaryChangeLog.txt, PartyRelationship.patch > > > Change to the party data model to support relationships where parties act in several capacities (roles) and allowing polynary relationships. > If someone could describe a situation where the direcition of the role matters (partyIdTo/partyIdFrom) and where the roleType is insuficient to understand the direction I will try to come up with a solution. I'm trying to understand if simply better role designations would alleviate ambiguity or if there is a real need to support direction. > I began a discussion on this topic, there has yet to be any response > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ofbiz-dev/200608.mbox/%3c20060809155147.18528.qmail@...%3e -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira |
«
Return to OFBiz - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |