Then that would put an arbitrary restriction on roles. A party could be both a lead and a contact.
-Adrian --- On Thu, 6/5/08, David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: primary Role on party To: [email protected] Date: Thursday, June 5, 2008, 8:59 PM I don't really like the idea of "primary role", as roles don't really work that way. If you don't want a party showing up on a list of leads and contacts, then they shouldn't have both the lead and contact roles... Could you be more specific about what you're trying to do here? -David On Jun 5, 2008, at 9:49 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > Why not make it a party relationship? A party is related to this > party/company/etc as a lead/contact/account/etc. > > -Adrian > > --- On Thu, 6/5/08, Hans Bakker &lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]&gt; > wrote: > From: Hans Bakker &lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]&gt; > Subject: primary Role on party > To: "user" &lt;[email protected]&gt; > Date: Thursday, June 5, 2008, 8:08 PM > > In the SFA application I need the definition of a 'primary roleType' > to > identify where a party is listed...either in leads, contacts or > accounts... > > Anybody any objections when i add this field to the Party entity? > > Regards, > Hans > >
