Re: primary Role on party

[David E Jones]

On Jun 5, 2008, at 10:58 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Umm...

> From: David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: primary Role on party
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> 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...

I'm still happy to stick by that sentence and maintain that I didn't  
say anything about not allowing them to be in both roles.

Anyways, the Data Model Resource Book provides an ideal model for  
multiple parties related to multiple parties in various roles. If  
you stay within those guidelines then you'll do well.

That could be what Hans is going for, but who knows. Maybe he does  
want them both to be associated with a certain company or sales  
person, but also there in both roles... then you have to do explicit  
exclusion anyway.

-David


-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: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Thursday, June 5, 2008, 9:39 PM

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: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> 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
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> > wrote:
> > From: Hans Bakker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: primary Role on party
> > To: "user"
<user@ofbiz.apache.org>
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>