Jacopo,
Thank you a lot. I missed this one.
It explains it and removes the confusion.
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 3:10 AM, Jacopo Cappellato
wrote:
> Are you sure it is not already implemented like this?
>
> See the following constraints from the Partyrelationship entity definition:
>
>rel-e
Are you sure it is not already implemented like this?
See the following constraints from the Partyrelationship entity definition:
Jacopo
On Oct 12, 2014, at 9:05 AM, Mansour Al Akeel wrote:
> Jacopo,
>
> The way to enforce the c
Jacopo,
The way to enforce the constraints is to define the PartyRelationship
between pair of PartyRoles, and NOT between partyIds and roleTypes.
This is what I meant.
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 2:54 AM, Mansour Al Akeel
wrote:
>>> In this case, we don't need to define the party ids in the
>>> Pa
>> In this case, we don't need to define the party ids in the
>> PartyRelationship, because the PartyRole entity has them. All we do is
>> we reference PartyRole(s).
>
> If I understand, you are suggesting to extend/use PartyRole in place of
> PartyRelationship; why not using PartyRelationship ins
uot;.
>> The "party role" entity should be used to specify what are the roles that
>> a party can play. In our example, for John Black we would have two roles:
>> "customer" and "employee".
>>
>> Summary:
>> * "party r
rmation to a party and add the DEVELOPER role to it; this
means that now the party can play the role of a developer in some party
relationship
2) create one or more party relationship where the party is a developer for
some other party
Jacopo
> I mean the whole point is data integrity,
t I meant to say is that in mostly all
> business logics/screens we should replace lookups to party roles with lookups
> to party relationships.
>
> Jacopo
#x27;t we find this confusing ? Why does someone
get involved into a DEVELOPER relationship if she does not have the
DEVELOPER PartyRole ? I mean the whole point is data integrity, by
allowing only certain parties to be engaged in a specific
relationship. This way we are allowing everyone to have a
John Black we would have two roles:
> "customer" and "employee".
>
> Summary:
> * "party role": the roles that a given party *can* play
> * "party relationship": the actual roles played by a given party (with
> respect to other parties).
>
>
to store different information for the party;
the party role entity is useful to tell you what are the roles that can be
played by a given party; what I meant to say is that in mostly all business
logics/screens we should replace lookups to party roles with lookups to party
relationships.
Jacopo
roles that a given party *can* play
* "party relationship": the actual roles played by a given party (with respect
to other parties).
Unfortunately in OFBiz, most of the screens and services are not implemented
considering "party relationships" but only "party roles&qu
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Sent: Sunday, 12 October, 2014 6:35:54 AM
Subject: Re: Party Relationship and Party Roles
Hi Mansour,
I have two points to make on your below question:
First, please note the Data Model book is not followed 100% in OFBiz, although
it adheres to it quite well.
Second, th
- Original Message -
From: "Mansour Al Akeel"
To: "user"
Sent: Sunday, 12 October, 2014 5:31:33 AM
Subject: Re: Party Relationship and Party Roles
Taher,
Thank you for th detailed explainatin. I understand the purpose of
party_role, and asking why do we link party_
ationship for Party.
> >
> > In ofbiz, we have PartyRelationship between two parties. So each party
> > ID is used as a key, combined with the relationship type. The book
> > mentions on page 42, that when customizing the model, it's recommended
> > to draw the r
l, it's recommended
> to draw the relationship between party roles.
>
> The part that I find confusing is, if we have the two party IDs in the
> party_role entity, why don't we create the relationship between two
> party roles, instead of duplicating the information in the
&g
customizing the model, it's recommended
to draw the relationship between party roles.
The part that I find confusing is, if we have the two party IDs in the
party_role entity, why don't we create the relationship between two
party roles, instead of duplicating the information in the
party_re
bump this up for current discussion
Rees Watkins sent the following on 6/7/2008 9:39 AM:
> Hi
>
> I am trying to understand Party Roles.
>
> Roles can be assigned to a Party. These can be standard system roles (e.g.
> Bill-To Customer) or Roles you create.
>
>
Hi
I am trying to understand Party Roles.
Roles can be assigned to a Party. These can be standard system roles (e.g.
Bill-To Customer) or Roles you create.
* Parties can be found based on their associated Roles.
* Relationships between Parties can be based on a Role
18 matches
Mail list logo
