I will try to explain better
With OFBiz you could create minimalistic application where you could
define roles to a party to make them appear in one dropdown for a
specific purpose.
What I wanted to show is that through pragmatism, basic usage of
PartyRole can exist and be sufficient.
But whereas a business need indicates that there is retirement of an
actor from a particular role, for me, then context "EntityNameRole"
fits for this. Thus I agree with PartyRelationship usage.
In partyMgr component, when managing party relationships and party
role, since it is more like a technical component, I do not see how we
can improve the screens and avoid having technical error like partyRole
FK constraint. And moreover, it is nice like this to me.
For business oriented component, like HR, the choice of roles
managements process should be made, and if I understand well that the
goal of OFBIZ-5827.
I hope it is clear
Gil
Le lun. 15 nov. 2021 à 1:25 pm, Jacques Le Roux
<jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> a écrit :
Hi Gil,
Inline...
Le 15/11/2021 à 10:36, gil a écrit :
Hello,
The current applications IMO are not meant to be used as it, but are
presenting existing features.
So there are many design flaws that exists in the current states of
the application (leads to fk constraint error messages when deleting
partyRole or creating partyRel).
The example of having only a partyRole defined for an actor to be
selected can be *sufficient* in one implementation
Sorry, I'm not sure what that means, could you explain a bit more? TIA
Having the need to expire role association implies, for me, to have
it associated within a context (WorkEffort, PartyRel, etc.) which
OFBIZ-5827 is one possibility.
That makes sense and would prevent to remove PKs to PartyRole from
EntityNameRole relations. But do we really need that? Should we not
rather concentrate on PartyRelationShip. For instance we can't assign
a role to a party with a relation to an organisation (for OFBIz
implementation where there is several organisations).
PartyRelationShip allows that.
It is our choices as Integrators to decide and customize application
to use `ensurePartRole` when it is needed, or to lookup for the good
configured party the way it is the best for our case.
Sure, but what do you mean by that? To not remove things in model,
services, UI, etc?
In other word, Jacques I second your proposal, that seems the
consensus we could agree on.
Thanks, but it's a bit confuse to me, detailing your proposition
would help.
TIA
Jacques
Thanks,
Gil
Le lun. 15 nov. 2021 à 8:04 am, Jacques Le Roux
<jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com <mailto:jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>>
a écrit :
Le 13/11/2021 à 19:26, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
Jacopo made an interesting comment at:
<<https://s.apache.org/6s8lr>> that:
<<There are pros and cons, or rather scenarios that are
facilitated by one approach and made more difficult by the other,
to both ways of
interpreting PartyRole records.
The current approach, implemented in many ootb applications, as
Michael Brohl has pointed out, is to interpret the PartyRole
records as all the
roles the party actually plays.
The other approach, that is the one advocated by Pierre Smits,
is to interpret the PartyRole records as the roles the party can
play.>>
Hi Jacopo, All,
Thinking about it, is there not a contradiction between Michael's
vision (actually also how it was also historically envisioned by
the founders) and the fact that we are able to create/edit
PartyRoles in party component?
Hence the creation of OFBIZ-5980 "Have the ability to revoke
(expire) roles of a party", OFBIZ-12370 "InvoiceRole: impossible
combination of party and role selectable: leads to error" and all
related issues,
It seems to me that OFBIZ-5827 "Have party selection in screens
based on relation(s) in stead of role" and all related issues fits
more.
Note that all is Pierre's work. That's the Gordian node I speak
about. I think we have already almost decided how to cut it:
OFBIZ-5827 way rather than OFBIZ-5980 one.
So we should tackle OFBIZ-5827 and all related issues and close
OFBIZ-5980 and all related issue after carefully reviewing them
Nobody objects?
Jacques
Le lun. 15 nov. 2021 à 1:25 pm, Jacques Le Roux
<jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> a écrit :
Hi Gil,
Inline...
Le 15/11/2021 à 10:36, gil a écrit :
Hello,
The current applications IMO are not meant to be used as it, but are
presenting existing features.
So there are many design flaws that exists in the current states of
the application (leads to fk constraint error messages when deleting
partyRole or creating partyRel).
The example of having only a partyRole defined for an actor to be
selected can be *sufficient* in one implementation
Sorry, I'm not sure what that means, could you explain a bit more? TIA
Having the need to expire role association implies, for me, to have
it associated within a context (WorkEffort, PartyRel, etc.) which
OFBIZ-5827 is one possibility.
That makes sense and would prevent to remove PKs to PartyRole from
EntityNameRole relations. But do we really need that? Should we not
rather concentrate on PartyRelationShip. For instance we can't assign
a role to a party with a relation to an organisation (for OFBIz
implementation where there is several organisations).
PartyRelationShip allows that.
It is our choices as Integrators to decide and customize application
to use `ensurePartRole` when it is needed, or to lookup for the good
configured party the way it is the best for our case.
Sure, but what do you mean by that? To not remove things in model,
services, UI, etc?
In other word, Jacques I second your proposal, that seems the
consensus we could agree on.
Thanks, but it's a bit confuse to me, detailing your proposition
would help.
TIA
Jacques
Thanks,
Gil
Le lun. 15 nov. 2021 à 8:04 am, Jacques Le Roux
<jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com <mailto:jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>>
a écrit :
Le 13/11/2021 à 19:26, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
Jacopo made an interesting comment at:
<<https://s.apache.org/6s8lr>> that:
<<There are pros and cons, or rather scenarios that are
facilitated by one approach and made more difficult by the other,
to both ways of
interpreting PartyRole records.
The current approach, implemented in many ootb applications, as
Michael Brohl has pointed out, is to interpret the PartyRole
records as all the
roles the party actually plays.
The other approach, that is the one advocated by Pierre Smits,
is to interpret the PartyRole records as the roles the party can
play.>>
Hi Jacopo, All,
Thinking about it, is there not a contradiction between Michael's
vision (actually also how it was also historically envisioned by
the founders) and the fact that we are able to create/edit
PartyRoles in party component?
Hence the creation of OFBIZ-5980 "Have the ability to revoke
(expire) roles of a party", OFBIZ-12370 "InvoiceRole: impossible
combination of party and role selectable: leads to error" and all
related issues,
It seems to me that OFBIZ-5827 "Have party selection in screens
based on relation(s) in stead of role" and all related issues fits
more.
Note that all is Pierre's work. That's the Gordian node I speak
about. I think we have already almost decided how to cut it:
OFBIZ-5827 way rather than OFBIZ-5980 one.
So we should tackle OFBIZ-5827 and all related issues and close
OFBIZ-5980 and all related issue after carefully reviewing them
Nobody objects?
Jacques
