I wasn't complaining about the lack of documentation, just the lack of an answer. And I solved that complaint by responding to you, that your assumption was my assumption. I also don't consider the comment "Very Frustrating" to be a complaint. It's a statement of fact.
The rest was just an idea to be kicked around. However, after further looking in to the code that's not going to be very easy to do. We use both. I'm at work, so the details are fuzzy, but in some cases we use either class or type to determine which account a transaction should go into if no account is provided. A couple of other places where we use that extra information to do the same type of thing. I would change the documentation and comment the code if I could get a confirmation of the assumption. No documentation is better then bad documentation. On 12/17/07, Jacopo Cappellato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim, > > we are building the accounting component and you kindly offered to help: > if you are unhappy with the documentation, dig into the code and write it. > > You know what? > After about 5 years working in this project I'm getting bored of > people's complaints... > > Jacopo > > > Jim Barrows wrote: > > That's my assumption. I asked the exact same question some time ago, > > and got a nothing as a response. > > > > Very frustrating. > > > > I think there should only be 5 accountTypes - Revenue, Expense, Asset, > > Liability, Owners Equity, and the account classes just blown away. > > That way we're in compliance with the book. > > > > An account is not a class of accounts receivable, it's a child of > > accounts receivable. It's also an Asset, > > > > We seem to use the accountType to figure out which GL account to put > > a transaction into. I think this is silly.. if you can get the type, > > you can get the account... and besides you can have multiple > > accountReceivables, depending on how many customers you give credit > > to. So which one do you put it into? The service I was just looking > > at doesn't go any further. > > > > It's all very confusing, with no documentation that I can find on it. > > > > On Dec 17, 2007 3:55 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> What is the difference between the the type (glAccountTypeId) and the > >> class (glAccountClassId) of a GL account (GlAccount)? > >> > >> In the Data Model Resource Book there is no mention of classes but my > >> guess is that the information that we store in the class is the same > >> that in the Book is stored in the type field... am I wrong? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Jacopo > >> > > > > > > > > -- James A Barrows
