On 2015-11-23 08:06, Hendrik Brandes wrote: > Am Montag, 23. November 2015 16:55:05 UTC+1 schrieb Cédric Krier: > > > > On 2015-11-23 06:42, Hendrik Brandes wrote: > > > Am Samstag, 21. November 2015 14:35:04 UTC+1 schrieb Cédric Krier: > > > > Using multi-company should always been the last solution because it is > > > > complex and has many constraints like using exactly the same sets of > > > > modules for all companies etc. > > > > > > > > > > Ok, but that's no problem in this context at all. For me it looks like > > an > > > alternative idea for having this shared-warehouse concept. > > > But through the discussions about having multi-company instances, I > > wonder, > > > how long this feature stays within the tryton-kernel. > > > > I think you should ask the opposite question when will multi-company > > available. But as usual, we can not answer such question. > > > > > > Indeed what you describe looks like a EDI communication between the > > > > companies. There have been already many discussion about this topic > > but > > > > as far as I know there is not yet any module available. > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the EDI: Do you think, that using proteus within a tryton > > module > > > is possible? > > > > I don't see the point. But I guess as far as you have the credentials. > > > > It's because of my less experiences with python ;-) I suggest, that it > could be problematic > when mixing concrete tryton objects with remote "proteus.tryton.xxxx" > objects. So I think, I will give it a try!
Of course you can not mix. PS: Please don't copy the original email twice in your answer, see http://groups.tryton.org/netiquette -- Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL Email/Jabber: cedric.kr...@b2ck.com Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Website: http://www.b2ck.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tryton" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tryton/20151123163731.GN15014%40tetsuo.b2ck.com.
