Posted by
cjhowe on
URL: http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/Dev-Party-to-Geo-assoc-entity-tp166878p166883.html
I would think the PartyGroups would be more intuitive
than a Party-Geo entity. The PartyGroups can
encompass the functionality your trying to obtain and
the Party-Geo would be rather limited to that specific
functionality. If you're looking to assign
specifically and not be based on a predefined
guesswork, you could accomplish it by assiging a party
of the GeoId you're defining and partytype Geo and
associate it that way.
I think there's been a lot of leanings toward creating
new entities as opposed to new entitytypes in the
model that might be compromising normalization and
making it a bit more difficult to conceptualize the
way entity groups interact.
--- Si Chen <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> What if a company had several warehouse addresses
> and offices across the
> country? Which sales territority does he belong to?
> I don't think
> there's an automatic match up.
>
> Then again, maybe a better alternative is that a
> "sales territority" is
> really a PartyGroup with a PartyGroupRollup. So
> maybe it is not
> necessary to assign parties directly to it.
>
> Then again, though, it'd be intuitive still to
> associate this party
> group with a geo.
>
> Si
>
> Chris Howe wrote:
>
> >What limitations are you finding using the current
> >data model to group people this way? ie a
> territory
> >is a geoId that consists of zip codes, city,
> >etc...anyone who has a zip code or city etc as
> their
> >primary address belongs to that geoId. Seems to
> break
> >normalization unless something is limited by the
> >current structure.
> >
> >--- Si Chen <
[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>customers in a territority.
> >>
> >>Chris Howe wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>What functionality are you thinking of?
> >>>
> >>>--- Si Chen <
[hidden email]>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Hi everybody -
> >>>>
> >>>>I'm thinking about adding an entity which would
> >>>>associate Parties with
> >>>>Geos, such that a particular party would be
> >>>>associated, with say,
> >>>>Florida or Europe. I doesn't seem like there is
> >>>>anything like that
> >>>>right now. How does PartyGeoAssoc with
> partyId*,
> >>>>geoId*, fromDate*,
> >>>>thruDate sound?
> >>>>
> >>>>Si
> >>>>
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>Dev mailing list
> >>>>
[hidden email]
> >>>>
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>Dev mailing list
> >>>
[hidden email]
> >>>
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Dev mailing list
> >>
[hidden email]
> >>
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Dev mailing list
> >
[hidden email]
> >
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
>
[hidden email]
>
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev>
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev