Scott Gray-2 wrote: > > I think you missed the second half of my earlier email: >> I'm not sure how I would handle something like a security card but IMO >> the Employment entity should be an extension to PartyRelationship, I mean >> it already shares the same primary key fields. > > Employment already has the same PK fields as PartyRelationship. >
Yep; I had definitely glossed over that. In my head I was thinking that PartyRelationship had a partyRelationshipId that could be added to Employment and Employment could have those other fields removed. But you are quite correct, we could simply use the existing primary key fields. Would there be any thought to doing the former? I don't think I want to bite that off to be honest, but one could create the entity such that it has a single primary key and the others would make up a unique index. Personally, I don't know if that is a good idea but it would reduce redundancy in the sub-classes. -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Storing-supplier-provided-account-number-tp2076162p2124868.html Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
