hello I've never seen, up to now, a sane use of multi-company As far as business applisation is concerned, I don't even think it can be a legal approach in EU. Group reports are the worst reason to do it.
As Sebastian explained, there is a problem to move existing multi-companiy solutions. He may also elaborate on the reasons multi-company has been adopted despite all its drawbacks. Axel, if you planned to use it, why did you ? regarding my positive experience of it : - I know of a project for a cooperative company for which a verticalization has been done; This used similar approach to multi-company, but it was not multi-company - I get sometimes the requirement for "multi-branding" business which make the company appear under different brands depending on the channel. Multi-company has been a big reason of failure for many projects where it just cannot fit. - Group level reports are the worst reason to do it. - Shared operations (one sells, one buys) just cannot be done with it. regards 2014-09-11 12:37 GMT+02:00 Cédric Krier <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > Following my attempt to improve the situation of multi-company [1], I > faced so much problem that I only see to solution: > > - a very complicate one where many things will become a list per > company. For example on product, the prices, the accounts etc. > This will make the code very complicate but also the user > interface. > > - a very simple, drop company. > > > I start thinking that the last one is the right move even if it will > prevent none single company database to migrate. > > What are the use case of multi-company? > > - accounting consolidation > > It is a reporting issue that should be fixed by BI > > - sharing party > > That's a good one if you forget that parties have many properties > directly linked to the company like the accounts, tax rules etc. > And I think this can be acheived by using a synchronisation of the > common data using for example the CardDAV or any other similar > protocol. > > - sharing product > > Quite similar to party expect that it has much more company related > properties. > So again it could be implemented using a synchronisation mechanism. > I know there are product description message in EDI, so it could be > a way. > > I don't see any other cases. > > So when I imagine the simplification of removing the company, I really > think it deserve the annoyance of breaking the migration. > And for such cases, a way to go could be to duplicate the DB and drop on > each the other the companies. > > > [1] https://bugs.tryton.org/issue4080 > > -- > Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL > Email/Jabber: [email protected] > Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 > Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
