On 10/10/13 10:57 +0200, Romain Séon wrote: > 2013/10/9 LAG Robin Baumgartner <[email protected]>: > > You're not alone with this requirement. In fact, we have already > > developed a very similar module called party_relationship[1]. > > > > Looking at your blueprint, it seems to be very close to our > > implementation. Maybe you want to use that as a base? Improvements are > > welcome of course. > > > We also have the same kind of implementation [1]. We used to have from > the party relation type a link to the reversed relation type, but > after a while we removed it. There is only one relation type between > two parties, only the name differs from which side you see the > relation. This implementation works fine for us and seems pretty > simple. > > [1] http://pastebin.com/NckykimD
Except that you will quickly start to have duplicate relation kinds. For example, a first one: (name: "parent of", reversed: "child of") and a second one: (name: "child of", reversed: "parent of"). So here it is really better to normalize the schema. Also I think the "in relation with" is not really good to show. -- 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/
pgpSLEw0ItInz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
