-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I am glad to see this. I see this a way to move the to and from in
postaladdress as well.

David E Jones sent the following on 3/16/2009 7:43 AM:
> 
> Actually no, I see this new entity as serving a different purpose than
> the CommunicationEventRole. There could still be others, like a CSR
> Manager or something, that are associated with the CommunicationEvent in
> a Role but that were not involved in the communication itself.
> 
> The *Role entities have a general purpose, and I think that general
> purpose is still needed for CommunicationEvent... this other just models
> who is participating in the communication event itself.
> 
> -David
> 
> 
> On Mar 16, 2009, at 1:36 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> 
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Sometimes one has to oversimplify to get a ball rolling.....
>> Thank you for now acknowledging that the current communication event
>> model has its problems. This new entity as you describe below is indeed
>> a better solution than the CommunicationEventRole entity and allows for
>> the usage of the communicationevent in all the cases I see. We can now
>> remove the roletypes as 'originator', 'recipient' etc...
>>
>> If i understand you well, then you will propose that this new entity
>> will replace the communicationEventRole entity? And how is the from/to
>> data in the communicationevent now relate to this new entity? Can they
>> now be depreciated?
>>
>> so finally Jacques succeeded to get this slowly resolved.... :-)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hans
>>
>> On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 12:04 -0600, David E Jones wrote:
>>> Since we seem to be back to this issue...
>>>
>>> What you're saying Hans is an over-simplification of the issue as I
>>> explained before.
>>>
>>> If you want to properly model the from/to situation we need an entity
>>> like this (as I also explained before, so see that email for rationale
>>> and other details):
>>>
>>> CommunicationEventContactMech
>>> communicationEventId*
>>> contactMechId*
>>> contactTypeEnumId*
>>> partyId
>>> roleTypeId
>>>
>>> Notice that partyId and roleTypeId are NOT part of the PK and are
>>> intentionally optional. In many cases all you'll have is an email
>>> address and you won't know a party or a role.
>>>
>>> The contactTypeEnumId would have options for email comm events like
>>> "TO", "FROM", "CC", and "BCC".
>>>
>>> IMO anything other than this is an over-simplification and does not
>>> adequately model the problem.
>>>
>>> However, that is based only on the requirements that I came up with...
>>> but since no one else has tried to come up with requirements for this
>>> data model (only saying this or that design is the way to go)... there
>>> it is.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 15, 2009, at 11:57 AM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 15, 2009, at 7:09 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am sorry but i do not agree with this.
>>>>> The roleTypes on a communication event is a big problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> did you ever send an email stating you are a customer or an employee?
>>>>> You do however know if you are the originator and which parties you
>>>>> copy...and the parties you copy...which roleTypes do they have?
>>>>
>>>> Send personally? No. Send from an organization? Usually. Receive in
>>>> an organization? Yes.
>>>>
>>>> When an organization receives communication it is nice to know who
>>>> it is from and what role they are playing. For example later on one
>>>> might want to report on communications from customers without
>>>> including communications from suppliers or employees or whomever.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 11:38 +0000, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> Author: jleroux
>>>>>> Date: Sun Mar 15 11:38:29 2009
>>>>>> New Revision: 754657
>>>>>>
>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=754657&view=rev
>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>> Descriptions enhancements from the thread
>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ofbiz-user/200903.mbox/%[email protected]%3e
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>  ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Modified: ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml
>>>>>> URL:
>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml?rev=754657&r1=754656&r2=754657&view=diff
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =
>>>>>> =
>>>>>> =
>>>>>> =
>>>>>> =
>>>>>> =
>>>>>> =
>>>>>> =
>>>>>> =
>>>>>> =
>>>>>> ====================================================================
>>>>>> --- ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml
>>>>>> (original)
>>>>>> +++ ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml Sun
>>>>>> Mar 15 11:38:29 2009
>>>>>> @@ -647,7 +647,7 @@
>>>>>>       <field name="contactMechTypeId" type="id"></field>
>>>>>>       <field name="contactMechIdFrom" type="id"/>
>>>>>>       <field name="contactMechIdTo" type="id"/>
>>>>>> -        <field name="roleTypeIdFrom" type="id"></field>
>>>>>> +        <field name="roleTypeIdFrom" type="id"><description>If
>>>>>> the partyIdFrom/roleTypeIdFrom fields are populated here the same
>>>>>> data should not be duplicated in CommunicationEventRole records.</
>>>>>> description></field>
>>>>>>       <field name="roleTypeIdTo" type="id"></field>
>>>>>>       <field name="partyIdFrom" type="id"></field>
>>>>>>       <field name="partyIdTo" type="id"></field>
>>>>>> @@ -842,7 +842,7 @@
>>>>>>           package-name="org.ofbiz.party.communication"
>>>>>>           title="Communication Event Role Entity">
>>>>>>     <field name="communicationEventId" type="id-ne"></field>
>>>>>> -      <field name="partyId" type="id-ne"></field>
>>>>>> +        <field name="partyId" type="id-ne"><description>If the
>>>>>> partyIdFrom/roleTypeIdFrom fields are populated in
>>>>>> CommunicationEvent the same data should not be duplicated in
>>>>>> CommunicationEventRole records.</description></field>
>>>>>>     <field name="roleTypeId" type="id-ne"></field>
>>>>>>     <field name="contactMechId" type="id"><description>For
>>>>>> additional communication event participants this represents the
>>>>>> contactMechId of the ContactMech used.</description></field>
>>>>>>     <field name="statusId" type="id"></field>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> -- 
>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>>
> 
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJvu4prP3NbaWWqE4RAucGAKDBbKfaIkcB9B998Nnvt7UshdUVwgCcCKRb
vQPLb91weOj6+DFQMmwqGFY=
=GH3g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply via email to