Re: All roleType entities should maintain lifespan

Jacques Le Roux Fri, 17 Nov 2017 01:24:51 -0800

Le 16/11/2017 à 07:05, Deepak Dixit a écrit :

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

Sounds like we are finally reaching a consensus. I suggest we create a Jira and write a wiki page on that when we will "all" agree and before we startworking on this.


Now I'd like to be sure we "all" agree, should we start a vote on this, or is 
the current near consensus enough?

Thanks

Jacques

Re: All roleType entities should maintain lifespan

Reply via email to