>>>PartyRole is a technical entity as functional entity (it's border line :) ). Prefer to manage this role lifespan information with PartyRelationship and hidden PartyRole value to end user.
You are right Nicolas, These kind of information should be managed in PartyRelationship entity, In case of multi company A party can be in different role in different organisation. So here PartyRole is not right candidate. These information should be fetched from PartyRelationship. So +1 for removing FKs from EntityNameRole entities to PartyRole, and if we do this we don;t need ensurePartyRole service, we can remove this service as well or it can be used for different use cases Thanks & Regards -- Deepak Dixit www.hotwaxsystems.com www.hotwax.co On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Jacques Le Roux < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Suraj, > > Though it's obvious when you look at the figure 4 of > http://www.universaldatamodels.com/Portals/9/udm_ > Publication_Articles_11_05_Models_Patterns.pdf > > I missed to say that I agree about removing the FK from EntityNameRole > entities to PartyRole. > > Jacques > > > Le 15/11/2017 à 17:38, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : > >> Hi Suraj, All, >> >> It makes sense to have roles of parties limited in time >> >> But unfortunately adding from/thru dates to PartyRole would entail >> tremendous changes as Nicolas and Adrian and Gil in OFBIZ-5959 mentioned. >> >> We had this discussion so many times (with some variants and confusion: >> http://ofbiz.markmail.org/search/?q=PartyRole+PartyRelationship) that I >> feel the need to come to a definitive consensual agreement and write a wiki >> page about it. >> >> I remember asking myself about all that during a custom project and >> having difficulties to take a decision by myself. >> >> As you mentioned, I think the most interesting discussion is in >> OFBIZ-5959 and we could built on that before taking a consensual decision >> and writing a wiki page. Maybe we will need a vote for that... >> >> We definitively need a way to limit roles of parties in time, but then >> why not simply use contextual EntityNameRole entities as it was suggested >> in OFBIZ-5959 >> >> About that, what do you think about my last comment at OFBIZ-5959: >> https://s.apache.org/QXrl ? >> >> Thanks >> >> Jacques >> >> >> Le 28/10/2017 à 10:25, Suraj Khurana a écrit : >> >>> Hi Scott, >>> >>> Thanks for your response. >>> In figure-4 he <http://www.universaldatamodels.com/Portals/9/udm_ >>> Publication_Articles_11_05_Models_Patterns.pdf>__re < >>> http://www.universaldatamodels.com/Portals/9/udm_ >>> Publication_Articles_11_05_Models_Patterns.pdf>, it is specified that >>> we do not need to manage partyRole entity as party role is specific to >>> something (like work effort) i.e. party does not have a dependency on party >>> role for the role in any entity. >>> IMO, we should have PartyRole entity so that it becomes easy to filter >>> parties in specific roles, but, on the other hand, we should not maintain >>> this FK relationship while adding records to other entities like OrderRole, >>> AdjustmentRole etc. >>> >>> One use case could be like I mentioned earlier, it becomes easy to >>> filter parties in specific roles like suppliers, distributors etc. >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks and Regards >>> *Suraj Khurana***| Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer >>> *HotWax Commerce* by *HotWax Systems* >>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010 >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Scott Gray < >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected] >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Suraj, >>> >>> I still haven't seen an example of a useful use case for adding >>> from/thruDate fields to the PartyRole table. Did you have anything in mind >>> that >>> it might help with? >>> >>> I'd honestly prefer to remove it rather than expand it. >>> >>> Regards >>> Scott >>> >>> On 29 September 2017 at 20:41, Suraj Khurana < >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected] >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> There has been already a discussion under OFBIZ-5959 >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959 < >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959>> regarding this. >>> I would like to bring this point again into attention and would >>> like to >>> suggest that we should introduce lifespan to all such entities. >>> Also, PartyRole FK constraint should be removed while adding a >>> record of >>> that party in any other role entity, earlier it was also >>> discussed that it >>> becomes cumbersome to manage that and there is not any specific >>> need to >>> have that in real time as well. >>> >>> Let me know your thoughts on this. >>> -- >>> Thanks and Regards >>> *Suraj Khurana* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer >>> *HotWax Commerce* by *HotWax Systems* >>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India >>> 452010 >>> >>> >>> >>> *Suraj Khurana***| Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer >>> HotWax Commerce <http://www.hotwax.co/>by **HotWax Systems < >>> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> >>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010 >>> Cell phone: +91 96697-50002 >>> >>> <https://about.me/surajkhurana?promo=email_sig> >>> >>> >>> HotWax Systems <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> recently received 8 >>> mentions in /*The Gartner Digital Commerce Vendor Guide, 2016 */by Gartner, >>> Inc., the world's leading IT research and advisory company. >>> >>> Inline image 1 >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Nicolas Malin < >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Add lifespan to PartyRole seems to me just to complex perhaps >>> impossible. If you want indicate (as example) that a party is a customer >>> from / to >>> with a lifespan on PartyRole they missing the information customer >>> from who ? >>> >>> PartyRole is a technical entity as functional entity (it's border >>> line :) ). Prefer to manage this role lifespan information with >>> PartyRelationship and hidden PartyRole value to end user. >>> >>> A party with "bill to customer" role associate to an order would be >>> for the system always a "bill to customer" and not only for the life order >>> time. But in the other case, you can consider that this "bill to >>> customer" is finish for your company and you can indicate this through >>> PartyRelationship >>> >>> Nicolas >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 29/09/2017 à 10:00, Scott Gray a écrit : >>> >>> Hi Suraj, >>> >>> I still haven't seen an example of a useful use case for adding >>> from/thruDate fields to the PartyRole table. Did you have >>> anything in mind >>> that it might help with? >>> >>> I'd honestly prefer to remove it rather than expand it. >>> >>> Regards >>> Scott >>> >>> On 29 September 2017 at 20:41, Suraj Khurana < >>> [email protected] <mailto:suraj.khurana@hotwaxsy >>> stems.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> There has been already a discussion under OFBIZ-5959 >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959 < >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959>> regarding this. >>> I would like to bring this point again into attention and >>> would like to >>> suggest that we should introduce lifespan to all such >>> entities. >>> Also, PartyRole FK constraint should be removed while adding >>> a record of >>> that party in any other role entity, earlier it was also >>> discussed that it >>> becomes cumbersome to manage that and there is not any >>> specific need to >>> have that in real time as well. >>> >>> Let me know your thoughts on this. >>> -- >>> Thanks and Regards >>> *Suraj Khurana* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer >>> *HotWax Commerce* by *HotWax Systems* >>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India >>> 452010 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
