* Albert Cervera i Areny: " Re: [tryton] Why not killing company?" (Mon, 15 Sep 2014 16:08:26 +0200):
> 2014-09-12 18:29 GMT+02:00 Albert Cervera i Areny <[email protected]>: > > 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. > > > > I think the proposed simplification provides nice of advantages when > > developing new modules and part of trytond including completely > > removing fields.Property without the need of a replacement, > > performance and what you mentioned in another e-mail about group > > management. Also one thing that I like about removing company so other > > people can understand the benefits is one there's a "multi-company" > > situation where those companies have really different needs. Say one > > needs GNU/Health and the other one needs to manage production. Nobody > > would put those two setups in the same database. > > > > My main concern is that data synchronization is not really a simple > > thing to do, do it right and efficiently. Not to mention that it is > > not exactly the same as sharing the same database. For example, > > conflicts when writing on the same record database are managed by > > comparing the two records just when the user is updating them. That > > minimizes the conflict probability. > > > > In fact, the number of conflicts and complexity to manage them > > increases when you update asynchronously. For example, sharing > > products is not just sharing the product but also the categories which > > can have parents and thus the order of sending and updating data is > > not so simple. Specially because you can have cyclic references if a > > user changed data in the remote system. Category is just an example of > > a field that we find in core modules, but if we think Tryton as a > > framework we should probably take care of making a reasonably > > extensible solution for which we can provide standard solutions to > > this kind of problems. > > > > Regarding other data apart from party and product (and their related > > information), there can be other information that is interesting to be > > shared between companies when we move out of tryton core. For example, > > the templates in quality_control module and I'm pretty sure there can > > be others. I'm not suggesting Tryton should solve them out of the box > > but again maybe we should try to think well what should be the > > mechanism of syncronizing that information because that is > > non-trivial. > > In case others are interested, SymmetricDS [1] seems it could be a > good solution for data synchronization for companies that need sharing > a lot of information such as: product categories, accounts, etc. > > [1] http://www.symmetricds.org/ Thanks for sharing, Albert, interesting approach. Will have a closer look and come back. Java...:(...;). -- Mathias Behrle MBSolutions Gilgenmatten 10 A D-79114 Freiburg Tel: +49(761)471023 Fax: +49(761)4770816 http://m9s.biz UStIdNr: DE 142009020 PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0x8405BBF6
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
