Hi Ardrian
Sorry for the late reply, i thought it was good to wait a couple of days....
please find my answers in-line.
Regards,
Hans
Hans,
I apologize for the terse response and waving you off. I was feeling a
bit frustrated by this thread - not because of the conversation
contained in it, but because of the history of you asking for advice,
and when that advice is given, you argue against it.
Apology accepted.
Yes sure, advice is welcome but when i do not agree with the advice I
can and will argue against it, I do not see anything wrong with this?
Apparently you do?
I wasn't trying to appear superior. My response was based on the
simple idea of closing your eyes and picturing the job interview
process. If you take the time to do that, it should be obvious that
the process may include a number of communication events, but is not
itself a communication event. If you can't picture that, then maybe
it's best to just leave the model alone.
Sure, but you as the calendar expert you should have known that we want
interview dates to appear on the calendar? This can, according to me,
best be done by creating a related workeffort event and this information
should not be added to the 'interview' entity as you suggest. Location?
this also can be referenced on the same workeffort by means of the
facilityId... So really, i do not see the need of an "Interview" entity
at all.
So, yes sorry, i still think the communication event is fine because it
has the advantage that it can list the interviews together with all
emails and telephone calls, so to list all communications using the
existing functionality.....AND this is following the data model book.....
I'm not a data modelling expert, but I do manage to get models right
most of the time. When I get it wrong, I will be the first one to
point it out. There are other areas of development that I am not
skilled in. In those I cases I simply follow the advice of others and
trust they are leading me in the right direction.
From my perspective, the developer community is composed of skilled
analysts, architects, programmers, etc - but I don't believe any one
person is all of those things. If the individuals in the developer
community see things that way, then consequently there is an
acknowledgement that there are some things we as individuals don't
know or understand. Some people believe that kind of acknowledgement
is a sign of weakness, but I see it as the beginning of wisdom.
Sorry but the last two paragraphs are a bit too cloudy for me.....
-Adrian
