I could not convince myself with your third point. Let me explain by taking a simple use case of slum dwellers in Mumbai. In Mumbai there is one government scheme named as 'SRA' wherein slum dwellers are given houses in building in exchange of their slums. In between this exchange, there is a time slot of 4-5 years wherein slum dwellers have address proof of their slums( which is not in existence now) and are currently living in temporary accommodation( whose address proof) they don't have. Only in such cases it makes sense to store two addresses( permanent and current). In rest of the cases, we would rather go with permanent address, instead of storing two same address. So is there still a need of storing a boolean value.Let me know your view on this.
Regards, Nikhil On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Saransh Sharma <sara...@theupscale.in> wrote: > See, the flow is generic while adding addresses for the customer the basic > flow should be, > > 1 Address Type as suggested by Srinivasan but it should not duplicate the > same address type we should be able to add more, addressType as per the > requirements once the addressType is created it should not create the same > addressType again > > 2 State Type we can load it from CodeValues > > 3. There are some cases when the customer have same address for case like > Permanent and Residential a boolean for sameAddressType should be > introduced or isBoth kind of boolean should be introduced and once the > addresses are same it should not create new address type with the following > one, > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:20 PM Nikhil Pawar <nickr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Latitude and longitude are also the attributes along with other fields of > > the address table. > > > > Regards, > > Nikhil > > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Saransh Sharma <sara...@theupscale.in> > > wrote: > > > > > What about geo mapping ? which enables the latitude and longitude from > > > google maps or some other service > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 2:41 PM Nikhil Pawar <nickr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hello All, > > > > > > > > Please find the attached schema diagram of the proposed Address and > > > > related configuration tables. > > > > A quick description of the diagram: > > > > Address table: > > > > The fields of the address table would be configurable. The user can > > > select > > > > the field via field configuration table. > > > > Rest of the fields are self explanatory. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Ankit Sharma <an...@theupscale.in> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi team, > > > >> We have already made addresses - official, residential and permanent > > as > > > a > > > >> standard feature of CB. > > > >> Looking forward on this. > > > >> > > > >> Ankit Sharma > > > >> Upscale > > > >> > > > >> > On 30-Jun-2016, at 1:42 PM, Ashok <as...@confluxtechnologies.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > +1 > > > >> > > > > >> > It makes sense to have a standard address with minimal fields to > > > >> support CB > > > >> > or any other integrations and can be extended/configurable by > > > >> organization. > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks and Regards, > > > >> > Ashok > > > >> > > > > >> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Nayan Ambali < > > nayan.amb...@gmail.com > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> >> Dayna, Markus, > > > >> >> > > > >> >> I feel, adding standard address to customer solves other problems > > > too, > > > >> >> example address can be made mandatory before activating client, > > > >> address can > > > >> >> be capture along with customer creation, Geo location based > service > > > on > > > >> >> Android can built. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> i vote for adding client address as standard(out of box) feature. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Thanks > > > >> >> Nayan Ambali > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Thanks and Regards, > > > >> >> Nayan Ambali > > > >> >> +91 9591996042 > > > >> >> skype: nayangambali > > > >> >> > > > >> >>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:07 PM, <nikhilpa...@yahoo.in> wrote: > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> Hello Devs, > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> While designing the credit bureau module, I came across few > design > > > >> >>> questions and I wanted community's opinion on that. > > > >> >>> When you make a credit check query, the credit bureau expects > you > > to > > > >> send > > > >> >>> the address along with few other identifiers. > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> In order to fetch the address fields in a more hassle free and > > less > > > >> error > > > >> >>> prone way, I was thinking if we can standardize the address as > > core > > > >> table. > > > >> >>> By standardizing this address table, we may remove the need for > > > >> defining > > > >> >>> custom data table for storing addresses. > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> Let me know your thoughts on this proposal of mine. > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> Regards, > > > >> >>> Nikhil > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
