Which is why I asked what Hans is really trying to accomplish.
I didn't say anything about a party not being able to be both a lead
and a contact, just trying to figure out why he wants to distinguish
them.
If it is a standard sales prospect progression then parties in each
step would pretty much always be in the previous step as well, meaning
if you want those that are in a certain step but not in the next step,
you have to explicitly exclude those in the next step.
Still, the last paragraph is a guess and Hans would have to be more
specific about what he's trying to do.
-David
On Jun 5, 2008, at 10:35 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
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
>
>
