OK, let's keep it "simple". Suppose you have (this is demo data + securityGroupId="MYPORTAL_EMPLOYEE", I just made it even if does make much - if any
- sense)
<PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="Company" partyIdTo="accountingadmin" partyRelationshipTypeId="EMPLOYMENT" roleTypeIdFrom="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO"
roleTypeIdTo="EMPLOYEE" fromDate="2001-01-01 12:00:00.0" securityGroupId="MYPORTAL_EMPLOYEE"/>
Then suppose you need also (don't try to make sense to this just focus on my
point)
<PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="Company" partyIdTo="accountingadmin" partyRelationshipTypeId="EMPLOYMENT" roleTypeIdFrom="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO"
roleTypeIdTo="EMPLOYEE" fromDate="2001-01-01 12:00:00.0" securityGroupId="MYPORTAL_EMPL-NOEML"/>
Then you can't have both securityGroupId="MYPORTAL_EMPLOYEE" AND
securityGroupId="MYPORTAL_EMPL-NOEML"
That's just what I want to say. It maybe have no real interest in the case of
PartyRelationship.
But Ron's request at OFBIZ-3764 would not be covered if we simply added a field to PartyRelationship to what was initially envisioned by Bob (an
account number)
Because Ron's request (the condo association http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condominium) is to have many different "account numbers" for the same
parties in the the same roles.
HTH
Jacques
Le 14/01/2015 23:54, Pierre Smits a écrit :
Jacques,
In order to grasp what you tried to bring across I assembled some PoC data.
See below:
<PartyRelationshipType description="" hasTable="N" parentTypeId=""
partyRelationshipName="Agent" partyRelationshipTypeId="AGENT"
roleTypeIdValidFrom="" roleTypeIdValidTo=""/>
<!-- relations from the left side party to 2 different parties with the
same role -->]
<PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="DemoCustCompany" partyIdTo=
"DemoCustAgent" roleTypeIdFrom="CUSTOMER" roleTypeIdTo="AGENT"
fromDate="2001-05-13 00:00:00.000" partyRelationshipTypeId="AGENT"
comments="Sandbox example"/>
<PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="DemoCustCompany" partyIdTo="admin"
roleTypeIdFrom="CUSTOMER" roleTypeIdTo="AGENT"
fromDate="2001-05-13 00:00:00.000" partyRelationshipTypeId="AGENT"
comments="Sandbox example"/>
<!-- the relationship of the second example with a different fromDate
-->
<PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="DemoCustCompany" partyIdTo="admin"
roleTypeIdFrom="CUSTOMER" roleTypeIdTo="AGENT"
fromDate="2010-05-13 00:00:00.000" partyRelationshipTypeId="AGENT"
comments="Sandbox example"/>
<!-- a party relationship reversed -->
<PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="DemoCustAgent" partyIdTo=
"DemoCustCompany" roleTypeIdFrom="AGENT" roleTypeIdTo="CUSTOMER"
fromDate="2001-05-13 00:00:00.000" partyRelationshipTypeId="AGENT"
comments="Sandbox example"/>
<!-- both parties having the same role -->
<PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="admin" partyIdTo="ltdadmin"
roleTypeIdFrom="MANAGER" roleTypeIdTo="MANAGER"
fromDate="2001-05-13 00:00:00.000" partyRelationshipTypeId="AGENT"
comments="Sandbox example"/>
<PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="ltdadmin" partyIdTo="admin"
roleTypeIdFrom="MANAGER" roleTypeIdTo="MANAGER"
fromDate="2001-05-13 00:00:00.000" partyRelationshipTypeId="AGENT"
comments="Sandbox example"/>
All load perfectly well when the PartyRelationshipType doens't have and
when parties have the roles they should have for the relationship.
So you do have to explain better, because I am not getting it.
Regards,
Pierre Smits
*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:10 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
[email protected]> wrote:
This is not what I mean Pierre, please re-read
Jacques
