A YAGNI, if I caption Adrians posting correctly....
Best 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 Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Adrian Crum < [email protected]> wrote: > My California Drvers License number might be considered a relationship > from the DMV to me, but it is not a requirement. An internal organization > might want to assign that identification to me, but they are not the DMV, > and the assignment of that identification does not imply I have a > relationship to the internal organization. > > So, the two are separate and unrelated. Until you understand that, this > conversation will continue to go in circles. > > Adrian Crum > Sandglass Software > www.sandglass-software.com > > On 1/15/2015 6:35 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: > >> It has everything to do with party relationships. >> >> A PartyIdentification is worth nothing when not brought in relation to >> something else via PartyRelationship (in the case of OFBiz), specifically >> considering the PartyIdentifications of the internal parties in relation >> to >> the external. Each internal party will have at least one per relationship. >> >> And if an external party is in relation with multiple internal parties, it >> might be so that each relationship has a different partyIdentification. >> >> Best 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 Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Adrian Crum < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> An account number is a PARTY IDENTIFICATION - it has nothing to do with >>> party relationships. >>> >>> Adrian Crum >>> Sandglass Software >>> www.sandglass-software.com >>> >>> On 1/14/2015 11:03 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>> >>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>
