Re: Users - Company as Employer

Posted by Charles Johnson-4 on May 11, 2006; 3:43pm
URL: http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/Users-Company-as-Employer-tp139149p139158.html




David E Jones wrote:

>Charles Johnson wrote:
>  
>
>>a. I take it that it's legitimate to leave Party 'Company' with that id
>>and to alter its other attributes as appropriate?
>>    
>>
>
>Yes. Unless you are very familiar with OFBiz I wouldn't even recommend considering to try to build up a company config on your own. There are too many options and it is too easy to set it up to do something you don't want because you're not sure what an option is. It depends on the size of your deployment of course, as some companies really need to (or should...) know all options to avoid or solve problems over time and really get it working the way they want.
>
>  
>
>>b. Is it legitimate for 'Company' to have the role EMPLOYER, as opposed
>>to that role being taken by a Person?
>>    
>>
>
>Any Party can have and RoleType associated with them, regardless of whether that Party is a Person or a PartyGroup. So yes, it is fine for the Company party (a PartyGroup) to have that role.
>
>-David
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Users mailing list
>[hidden email]
>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
>  
>
>>Any Party can have and RoleType associated with them

Thanks David. I just though some might argue that it could hide a
relationship, since it could be said to cloak the Person relationship
between a an employer and employee - I wonder if that's what Si Chen is
alluding to in his comments on this? Still it needn't be an either/or -
or need it..?

CJ

Thanks

 
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users