Re: Content documentation ...

Posted by byersa on Jul 04, 2006; 9:43pm
URL: http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/Content-documentation-tp140448p140454.html

OK, but shouldn't there be some consistent guideline as to how to assign
from and to relationships? What is it in this case?

-Al

David E. Jones wrote:

>
>
> Al Byers wrote:
>> One issue that I see needing resolving at this time is the
>> "direction" of the ContentAssoc entity. It has a from  field
>> (contentId) and a "to" field (contentIdTo). In any content managed
>> site, there is the concept of relating dynamic pieces of content to
>> fixed pieces. This is like a newspaper where the editorials are
>> always at the same place, but the content changes. This association
>> is done via the ContentAssoc entity, which is dated. The problem is
>> that I think I wrongly introduced the idea that the fixed content
>> would be the "to" component and the dynamic piece would be the
>> "from".  The contentAssocTypeId for this link is "PUBLISH_LINK". If I
>> had know, then I think I would have drawn from the PartyRelationship
>> example, in which the from and to partyIds and roles are designated
>> based on the direction of the partyRelationshipName (and
>> partyRelationshipTypeId, which is like the contentAssocTypeId field,
>> follows the name).
>> This is taken from the party/data/PartyTypeData.xml file:
>>    <!-- NOTE: The partyRelationshipName describes the TO party, ie A
>> is a customer of B, so A is the partyTo and B is the partyFrom -->
>>
>> So maybe I just contradicted myself, and what is there is correct.
>> PUBLISH_LINK (the contentAssocTypeId) is sort of the "name" of the
>> ContentAssoc and that sort of names the "fixed" content, which  by
>> the statement above, should be the contentIdTo. In any event, this is
>> something that should be in the documentation.
>
> A PartyRelationship is different from a ContentAssoc and no parallel
> should be drawn between them.
>
> -David
>