http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/Dev-right-way-to-set-up-party-relationship-tp166405p166412.html
David E. Jones wrote:
>
> On Dec 21, 2005, at 5:19 PM, Si Chen wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> I don't think much code needs to be changed. I think the current
>> code checks for a rollup of partyIdFrom to partyIdTo, and that's all
>> correct. Only the edit party relationship page and the descriptive
>> name of "GROUP_ROLLUP" need to be modified.
>
>
> I'll just say this one more time: much more than this has to be
> changed. I've already listed a number of places and there are others
> that may need to be changed. Finding and assuring they are all
> changed is not easy and quite error-prone.
>
>> The reason for doing is:
>> 1. To conform to the standard in the Data Model Resources Book
>
>
> What exactly in the data model resource book implies this sort of order?
>
>> 2. I really think the other way is more intuitive. GROUP_ROLLUP
>> can really go either way in meaning, but CUSTOMER, AGENT, etc. has
>> strong implications. At least I think it's more intuitive. If you
>> disagree, then we're stuck at 50:50. Maybe we should do a poll on
>> the list? :)
>
>
> Perhaps it is more intuitive, perhaps not. Of course, in things like
> this intuition might be somewhat dangerous. It hasn't been a problem
> in the past except for cases where the definition was not looked
> into. Even in the accounting extensions you setup the internal
> organization rollup demo data just fine...
>
> -David
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Dev mailing list
>
[hidden email]
>
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev>