party component dependency on accounting

[Bruno Busco]

What I meant is that regardless of how we read the "billing" business
process it is the *accounting* component that must depends on the
*party* component and not the other way around. This simply because we
can have party used for many other things different from accounting.
But whenever we want to use the accounting component we *need* the
party component...
...but you understood...good. ;-)

-Bruno

2010/2/6 Ruth Hoffman <[hidden email]>:

> Hi Bruno:
>
> Understood. I was just addressing Adrian's comment. IMO, component
> dependency is all about business processes. What else would make one piece
> of code dependent upon another? How would you know if there is or should be
> a dependency unless you analyzed the process behind the logic?
>
> Regards,
> Ruth
>
> Bruno Busco wrote:
>>
>> Ruth,
>> the discussion was about *components dependence* not about a
>> particular business process.
>> We are addressing the issue that it seems that right now it is not
>> possible to remove the accounting component while leaving the party
>> component into OFBiz.
>> This should be because the party should be used for things different
>> from what accounting component is designed for as so an installation
>> where party is present and not accounting should definitively be
>> possible.
>>
>> Please help us stay focused ot the subject. We have already
>> difficulties to understand each other.
>>
>> -Bruno
>>
>>
>> 2010/2/6 Ruth Hoffman <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>>
>>> Hello Adrian:
>>> Not necessarily. An "invoice" is a legal document. The use of an invoice
>>> to
>>> bill a "party" is a business process. Perhaps you meant to say that the
>>> creation of an invoice implies at least two parties?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Ruth
>>>
>>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say that. I asked "How do you create an invoice without a
>>>> party?"
>>>> An invoice implies two parties - the party being billed and the party
>>>> doing
>>>> the billing.
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>> --- On Sat, 2/6/10, Abdullah Shaikh <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Abdullah Shaikh <[hidden email]>
>>>>> Subject: Re: party component dependency on accounting
>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>> Date: Saturday, February 6, 2010, 12:30 AM
>>>>> I guess we can remove this kind on
>>>>> interdependency too by having services to
>>>>> communicate with other components instead of using a class
>>>>> of some other
>>>>> component to directly call a method.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Adrian said, we can create an invoice without party, but
>>>>> we can have
>>>>> services using which the account & party component can
>>>>> interact, this way
>>>>> the components can work independent of each other and can
>>>>> interact with
>>>>> other component only when required using services.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example party is dependent on invoice, and to interact
>>>>> with invoice a
>>>>> class of invoice component is being used, in this case its
>>>>> necessary to have
>>>>> the invoice component too, and if interaction would have
>>>>> been using
>>>>> services, the party component would have compiled/run
>>>>> successfully and would
>>>>> have failed only when services related to invoice are
>>>>> required and for this
>>>>> the user could add the invoice component.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know if I am missing something, but I feel that the
>>>>> interaction
>>>>> between components using services would help in eliminating
>>>>> the component
>>>>> interdependency.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Abdullah
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Adrian Crum <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also keep in mind that interdependency between some
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> components is
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> intentional and sometimes necessary. Think about it -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> how do you create an
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> invoice without a party?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- On Sat, 2/6/10, Jacopo Cappellato
>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: party component dependency on
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> accounting
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> Date: Saturday, February 6, 2010, 12:01 AM
>>>>>>> Hi Christopher,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> no, the PartyAcctgPreference entity is defined in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> accounting component (it is used to define
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> accounting
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> preferences for a given organization) and so it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> cannot be
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> moved to the party component.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Christopher Snow
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the party component, there is a view
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> dependent on
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the accounting component:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  <view-entity
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> entity-name="PartyAcctgPrefAndGroup"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> package-name="org.ofbiz.party.party"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   title="PartyAcctgPreference and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> PartyGroup
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Entity">
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  <member-entity
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> entity-alias="PTYACCPREF"
>>>>>>> entity-name="PartyAcctgPreference"/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  <member-entity
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> entity-alias="PTYGROUP"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> entity-name="PartyGroup"/>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      <alias
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> entity-alias="PTYACCPREF"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> name="partyId"/>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      <alias
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> entity-alias="PTYACCPREF"
>>>>>>> name="baseCurrencyUomId"/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      <alias
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> entity-alias="PTYGROUP"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> name="groupName"/>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  <view-link
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> entity-alias="PTYACCPREF"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> rel-entity-alias="PTYGROUP">
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   <key-map
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> field-name="partyId"/>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  </view-link>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  </view-entity>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Should this view be relocated to the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> accounting
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> component?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Many thanks in advance...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>

[Chris Snow-3]

Some dependencies are mandatory, e.g. partyId in invoice, however, a lot
of components are now dependent on accounting because of FixedAsset.

For example, a workeffort may have a fixedAssetId.  However,
fixedAssetId is optional in workeffort yet this relationship causes
another dependency.

Bruno Busco wrote:

> So in general we are not trying to have absolute components
> independance from each other.
> We need only to define and agree on a components functional
> hierarchical dependance and enforce it so that an higher level
> component should be removed without any issue.
>
> -Bruno
>
>
>
> 2010/2/6 Rishi Solanki <[hidden email]>:
>  
>> No worries Jacopo our ultimate goal is to work in Profit of OFBiz project,
>> what you understand from Initial question in that case the answer was right.
>> Learn a lot from each commiter commits and all discussions and conclusion
>> drawn by you guys. Happy to working in OFBiz with great community.
>> :-)
>>
>> Rishi Solanki
>> Enterprise Software Developer
>> HotWax Media Pvt. Ltd.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>    
>>> I am really sorry Rishi (and Christopher): I completely misunderstood
>>> Christopher's initial question and I have caused confusion!
>>> Yes, I agree that we should move the view to the accounting component.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Feb 6, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Rishi Solanki wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>> Hi Jacopo,
>>>> Chris is asking to move view entity in to accounting which is currently
>>>>        
>>> in
>>>      
>>>> the Party component. It is looking fine to me.
>>>> Please let me know if I misunderstood something.
>>>>
>>>> Rishi Solanki
>>>> Enterprise Software Developer
>>>> HotWax Media Pvt. Ltd.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>> Hi Christopher,
>>>>>
>>>>> no, the PartyAcctgPreference entity is defined in the accounting
>>>>>          
>>> component
>>>      
>>>>> (it is used to define accounting preferences for a given organization)
>>>>>          
>>> and
>>>      
>>>>> so it cannot be moved to the party component.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Christopher Snow wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>> In the party component, there is a view dependent on the accounting
>>>>>>            
>>>>> component:
>>>>>          
>>>>>>  <view-entity entity-name="PartyAcctgPrefAndGroup"
>>>>>>      package-name="org.ofbiz.party.party"
>>>>>>      title="PartyAcctgPreference and PartyGroup Entity">
>>>>>>      <member-entity entity-alias="PTYACCPREF"
>>>>>>            
>>>>> entity-name="PartyAcctgPreference"/>
>>>>>          
>>>>>>      <member-entity entity-alias="PTYGROUP" entity-name="PartyGroup"/>
>>>>>>      <alias entity-alias="PTYACCPREF"  name="partyId"/>
>>>>>>      <alias entity-alias="PTYACCPREF"  name="baseCurrencyUomId"/>
>>>>>>      <alias entity-alias="PTYGROUP"  name="groupName"/>
>>>>>>      <view-link entity-alias="PTYACCPREF" rel-entity-alias="PTYGROUP">
>>>>>>          <key-map field-name="partyId"/>
>>>>>>      </view-link>
>>>>>>  </view-entity>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should this view be relocated to the accounting component?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many thanks in advance...
>>>>>>            
>>>>>          
>>>