why would you have more than one manufacturer for the
same product?  wouldn't that make it a different
product?  I agree that it would be better for a more
generic product role setup, but if all the roles are
addressed AND it's not limiting, why go through the
trouble of refactoring?

--- Adrian Crum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I know about the manufacturer field in the Product
> entity. What do you do if 
> there is more than one manufacturer for a product?
> That's the limitation that 
> brought forth my original suggestion.
> 
> Why have a dozen different entities linking products
> to a dozen different party 
> roles? We could have one entity that links products
> to any party - regardless of 
> their role.
> 
> So, one entity could link a product to one or more
> suppliers, one or more 
> manufacturers, one or more product managers, etc. It
> seems more flexible to me.
> 
> 
> Chris Howe wrote:
> 
> > The manufacturer is desribed in the Product
> entity. 
> > The only other relationship to a product that I
> can
> > think of is the supplier and that is desribed in
> the
> > SupplierProduct entity.  Having a product manager,
> > again is probably managed easiest by putting the
> > product into a productCategory and managing the
> > productCategoryRoles on that. Outside of those
> > relationships, can you think of another that would
> > have to do with a product?
> > 
> > --- Adrian Crum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>I had suggested some time ago a
> ProductRelationship
> >>entity - where a product can 
> >>be related to a party, such as a manufacturer.
> Would
> >>something like that meet 
> >>your needs?
> >>
> >>
> >>Al Byers wrote:
> >>
> >>>I think I have a need for a ProductRole that
> >>
> >>mirrors the ContentRole 
> >>
> >>>entity. I want to associate a manager with a
> >>
> >>product. Is there another 
> >>
> >>>way to do this? If not, should I just create such
> >>
> >>an entity for this 
> >>
> >>>custom use or should it be something to propose
> >>
> >>for general use?
> >>
> >>>-Al
> >>>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> 

Reply via email to