http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/Dev-right-way-to-set-up-party-relationship-tp166405p166413.html
for consistency's sake. Thanks for looking at this.
> David,
>
> It's on page 45 of the Data Model Resource Book, Volume 1.
>
> Si
>
> 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>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
>
[hidden email]
>
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev>