Le Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:33:55 +0100, Cédric Krier <[email protected]> a écrit :
> On 26/01/12 13:26 +0100, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote: > > A Dijous, 26 de gener de 2012 13:24:44, Cédric Krier va escriure: > > > > I agree that caching per location and per lot is not a good > > > > idea. > > > > > > > > So, new proposal: > > > > > > > > > > > > a naive product_by_lot function will be slow, so we need > > > > caching. As lots are a bit like temporary locations, > > > > > > If so, why not use location instead of lot? > > > > Because you can have several products with different lots in the > > same location :) > > This is not an answer. If you consider that a lot is like a temporary > location than you can not put different lots in the same location. 1) I was talking about caching, noting else. 2) Your answer looks like you think that the concept of lot is completely non-needed, what's your point of view? Once again, my feeling is that we have different use cases in mind. As long as this point is not clear, nothing constructive can be done. -- Bertrand Chenal B2CK SPRL Rue de Rotterdam, 4 4000 Liège Belgium Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.b2ck.com/ -- [email protected] mailing list
