On 12 Sep 16:29, Dominique Chabord wrote: > 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. Indeed I really think it is doable to split such DB into many DB. - make a copy of the DB for each company - add delete cascading on all company foreign key - delete all but one company - remove the delete cascading - update the DB now you have a single-copany DB. Indeed, I think the migration of Tryton should check if there are no more than 1 company. > 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 And what was it? > - I get sometimes the requirement for "multi-branding" business which > make the company appear under different brands depending on the > channel. That's just about customization of report/header etc. > 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. Can you explain "Group reports"? > - Shared operations (one sells, one buys) just cannot be done with it. Can you ellaborate? -- Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL Email/Jabber: [email protected] Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
pgp0VFUG1gsA8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
