I already expressed that This sounds like an interesting approach indeed.
+1
Jacques
From: Mridul Pathak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi All,
For this I did suggested a way when this topic was discussed on
the user mailing list. The way I suggested was that, we can add the
field with name
By Accident the new field on the product has also slipped in to indicate
the new virtual/variant implementation
Please let me know if this is acceptable, or we should do it
differently.
Regards,
Hans
On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 10:13 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: hansbak
Date: Mon Mar 31
My first thought is that a field on the Product entity is not the best
way to set this up... aside from the possibility that maybe we don't
want an old way and a new way, maybe we just want one way.
Has any effort been put into combining the two methods, or are they
totally incompatible?
Hi David,
sure, i have investigated first to improve the current method. That is
not possible because the dependencies are stored with the available
variants. If a variant is not available the feature cannot be selected.
This means however that always all variants need to be checked for all
Hi All,
For this I did suggested a way when this topic was discussed on
the user mailing list. The way I suggested was that, we can add the
field with name virtualVariantMethod either in Product of Product
store and for this field we can define the enumerations like
VARIANT_TREE and
+1
On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 10:43 +0530, Mridul Pathak wrote:
Hi All,
For this I did suggested a way when this topic was discussed on
the user mailing list. The way I suggested was that, we can add the
field with name virtualVariantMethod either in Product of Product
store and for
