On 26/01/12 13:50 +0100, Bertrand Chenal wrote: > 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?
I think lot management is just about information and nothing more. All cases, where people think they can be solved by using restrictive lot management, can be solved differently. -- Cédric Krier B2CK SPRL Rue de Rotterdam, 4 4000 Liège Belgium Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Email/Jabber: [email protected] Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
pgp7tU2zsUjzb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
