products. Otherwise you're forced to create your
innacuracy. Isn't this product already going to be
> We use manufacturer information in the components
> that go into our homes.
>
> For instance, one "Product" would be a bathroom sink
> faucet. For simplicity, we
> refer to it as a bathroom sink faucet - no mention
> of manufacturer. Depending
> upon the year and the current style, the bathroom
> sink faucet may be
> manufactured by different companies. This year it's
> Kohler, five years ago
> it was Price-Pfister. Our suppliers know we will
> accept only the the brand we
> use currently.
>
> So, whenever we look up bathroom sink faucet we need
> to know which manufacturer
> was used and when. If we're sticking to a single
> generic product, then that
> means we need to link it to two manufacturers.
>
> Historical information is crucial for warranty
> service issues. If a homeowner
> calls about a failed bathroom sink faucet, we can
> find out the manufacturer
> based upon the date the home was manufactured. (In
> real life the homeowner would
> just run down to Home Depot for a replacement, but
> the process would apply for
> other items.)
>
> Is this an immediate need here? No. If the
> capability doesn't make it into the
> project before I address it here, then I'll just
> make the mods and contribute
> them back.
>
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
>
> >
> > Yeah, ProductCategoryRole might be a good model
> for multiple
> > manufacturers as well, but in a way it would be
> nice if it were more
> > directly associated with a Product... so I can see
> that being a possible
> > way to go as well. I guess it depends on how it
> would actually be used
> > by the people and the automated processes... Is
> this something that
> > anyone actually has a need and scenarios for right
> now?
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> > Adrian Crum wrote:
> >
> >> I'm looking over David's suggestion of using
> ProductCategoryRole.
> >> Multiple manufacturers could be handled that way
> - then just ignore
> >> the manufacturer field in Product.
> >>
> >> So, we could have a Product Category called "XYZ
> Manufacturing
> >> Products" then the products they manufacture
> could be linked to that
> >> category. The company itself can be linked to the
> category through the
> >> party ID in the role of manufacturer.
> >>
> >> Manufacturers and Suppliers are different
> parties, btw. A supplier
> >> could provide the same part from several
> manufacturers.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Chris Howe wrote:
> >>
> >>> Technically, I would think you should make them
> two
> >>> separate products and then relate the two
> products as
> >>> equivelents. But of course that depends on how
> >>> detailed the company wants to be. Aside from
> making
> >>> them two seperate products, you could treat the
> >>> manufacturers as seperate suppliers for the same
> >>> generic product.
> >>>
> >>> However, I can think of an example where the
> current
> >>> structure is limiting. When the manufacturer or
> >>> product line is acquired by another company.
> >>>
> >>> --- Adrian Crum <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> There are many examples of standard products
> that
> >>>> can come from multiple manufacturers. If I have
> a hardware store and
> >>>> I sell
> >>>> 3/4 inch galvanized pipe tees, they could come
> from three or four
> >>>> different
> >>>> manufacturers. Should I have a separate 3/4
> inch galvanized tee
> >>>> product for each
> >>>> manufacturer? I hope not! I used the example of
> electronic
> >>>> components the last
> >>>> time this was discussed - the same holds true
> there.
> >>>>
> >>>> It IS a limitation. It will come up again, and
> when
> >>>> it does, I'll continue to make the same
> suggestion.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Chris Howe wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> why would you have more than one manufacturer
> for
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> the
> >>>>
> >>>>> same product? wouldn't that make it a
> different
> >>>>> product? I agree that it would be better for
> a
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> more
> >>>>
> >>>>> generic product role setup, but if all the
> roles
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> are
> >>>>
> >>>>> addressed AND it's not limiting, why go
> through
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> the
> >>>>
> >>>>> trouble of refactoring?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- Adrian Crum <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I know about the manufacturer field in the
> Product
> >>>>>> entity. What do you do if there is more than
> one manufacturer for
> >>>>>> a product?
> >>>>>> That's the limitation that brought forth my
> original suggestion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why have a dozen different entities linking
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> products
> >>>>
> >>>>>> to a dozen different party roles? We could
> have one entity that links
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> products
> >>>>
> >>>>>> to any party - regardless of their role.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So, one entity could link a product to one or
> more
> >>>>>> suppliers, one or more manufacturers, one or
> more product
> >>>>>> managers, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It
> >>>>
> >>>>>> seems more flexible to me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Chris Howe wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The manufacturer is desribed in the Product
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> entity.
> >>>>>>
>