On 13/06/13 01:26 -0700, Chris Larsen wrote: > Thanks everybody for your very helpful replies. Cédric, allow me to explain > how I understand Parties versus Addresses: > If I have one big company as a customer, and this company is one party, > then I will invariably end up with several contacts within that parts (= > big company) with their related telephone numbers and other contact > mechanisms. > Admittedly, this expands the role of the address-only idea, but it is > undoubtedly useful. I think this is what raimonesteve and jmartin tried to > refer to. Of course, I could also shift perspective, and link several > parties to a super-party, where the party represents the company contact, > and the superparty the company. > The open question is what is the most user-friendly approach.
The all design of Party is based on this book: http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0471380237 I really think that using address as contact is a very big mistake. The simpliest proof is that a contact could have many addresses. The proper way is to create links between parties if large company structure needs to be stored. -- 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/
pgpjkCqvPaD0i.pgp
Description: PGP signature
