You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Suraj Khurana <su...@hotwaxsystems.com> on 2017/10/28 08:25:39 UTC
Re: All roleType entities should maintain lifespan
Hi Scott,
Thanks for your response.
In figure-4 he
<http://www.universaldatamodels.com/Portals/9/udm_Publication_Articles_11_05_Models_Patterns.pdf>
**re
<http://www.universaldatamodels.com/Portals/9/udm_Publication_Articles_11_05_Models_Patterns.pdf>,
it is specified that we do not need to manage partyRole entity as party
role is specific to something (like work effort) i.e. party does not have a
dependency on party role for the role in any entity.
IMO, we should have PartyRole entity so that it becomes easy to filter
parties in specific roles, but, on the other hand, we should not maintain
this FK relationship while adding records to other entities like OrderRole,
AdjustmentRole etc.
One use case could be like I mentioned earlier, it becomes easy to filter
parties in specific roles like suppliers, distributors etc.
--
Thanks and Regards
*Suraj Khurana* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
*HotWax Commerce* by *HotWax Systems*
Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxsystems.com>
wrote:
> Hi Suraj,
>
> I still haven't seen an example of a useful use case for adding
> from/thruDate fields to the PartyRole table. Did you have anything in mind
> that it might help with?
>
> I'd honestly prefer to remove it rather than expand it.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 29 September 2017 at 20:41, Suraj Khurana <suraj.khurana@hotwaxs
> ystems.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> There has been already a discussion under OFBIZ-5959
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959> regarding this.
>> I would like to bring this point again into attention and would like to
>> suggest that we should introduce lifespan to all such entities.
>> Also, PartyRole FK constraint should be removed while adding a record of
>> that party in any other role entity, earlier it was also discussed that it
>> becomes cumbersome to manage that and there is not any specific need to
>> have that in real time as well.
>>
>> Let me know your thoughts on this.
>> --
>> Thanks and Regards
>> *Suraj Khurana* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
>> *HotWax Commerce* by *HotWax Systems*
>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>>
>
>
*Suraj Khurana* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
HotWax Commerce <http://www.hotwax.co/> by HotWax Systems
<http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/>
Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
Cell phone: +91 96697-50002
<https://about.me/surajkhurana?promo=email_sig>
HotWax Systems <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> recently received 8
mentions in *The Gartner Digital Commerce Vendor Guide, 2016 *by Gartner,
Inc., the world's leading IT research and advisory company.
[image: Inline image 1]
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Nicolas Malin <ni...@nereide.fr>
wrote:
> Add lifespan to PartyRole seems to me just to complex perhaps impossible.
> If you want indicate (as example) that a party is a customer from / to with
> a lifespan on PartyRole they missing the information customer from who ?
>
> PartyRole is a technical entity as functional entity (it's border line :)
> ). Prefer to manage this role lifespan information with PartyRelationship
> and hidden PartyRole value to end user.
>
> A party with "bill to customer" role associate to an order would be for
> the system always a "bill to customer" and not only for the life order
> time. But in the other case, you can consider that this "bill to customer"
> is finish for your company and you can indicate this through
> PartyRelationship
>
> Nicolas
>
>
>
> Le 29/09/2017 à 10:00, Scott Gray a écrit :
>
>> Hi Suraj,
>>
>> I still haven't seen an example of a useful use case for adding
>> from/thruDate fields to the PartyRole table. Did you have anything in
>> mind
>> that it might help with?
>>
>> I'd honestly prefer to remove it rather than expand it.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 29 September 2017 at 20:41, Suraj Khurana <
>> suraj.khurana@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>>
>>> There has been already a discussion under OFBIZ-5959
>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959> regarding this.
>>> I would like to bring this point again into attention and would like to
>>> suggest that we should introduce lifespan to all such entities.
>>> Also, PartyRole FK constraint should be removed while adding a record of
>>> that party in any other role entity, earlier it was also discussed that
>>> it
>>> becomes cumbersome to manage that and there is not any specific need to
>>> have that in real time as well.
>>>
>>> Let me know your thoughts on this.
>>> --
>>> Thanks and Regards
>>> *Suraj Khurana* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
>>> *HotWax Commerce* by *HotWax Systems*
>>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>>>
>>>
>
Re: All roleType entities should maintain lifespan
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Nothing was added for almost 2 weeks. So I think we reached a lazy consensus, let me summarise it here, as I see it:
1. We don't want to add lifespan (add from/thruDate fields) to roleType entities; so OFBIZ-5959, its subtasks and related tasks should be closed as
won't fix
2. We want (continue and generalise) to use EntityNameRole to handle parties roles in specific contexts. This follows Len Silverston's "Flexible
Contextual Role Pattern" as shown in figure 4 of https://s.apache.org/tE19 and explained there.
3. We want to remove the FKs from EntityNameRole entities to PartyRole; so ensurePartyRole service should be removed or used another way.
It was suggested that PartyRole could be used in specific contexts. Filtering in screens before creating a relationship between a party and another
Entity comes to mind (ie to create an EntityNameRole record). This is though still disputed because some would prefer to use only PartyRelationship
for that, see OFBIZ-5827 and OFBIZ-5832 for instance. The reason is PartyRole is not in relation with an organisation when PartyRelationship is. So we
still need to agree on this because it. Note that there are cases were PartyRole is still needed. Notably for PartyGoups like in
createAcctgTransAndEntries:
<!-- the organization party must be an internal organization -->
<entity-one entity-name="PartyRole" value-field="partyRole" use-cache="true" auto-field-map="false">
<field-map field-name="partyId" from-field="acctgTransEntry.organizationPartyId"/>
<field-map field-name="roleTypeId" value="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO"/>
</entity-one>
<if-empty field="partyRole">
<log level="warning" message="The party with id [${acctgTransEntry.organizationPartyId}] is not an internal organization; the
following accounting transaction will be ignored: ${acctgTransEntry}"/>
<else>
About the point 2, I want to add that the alternative would be to use the data model proposed in Figure 9. But IMO it's better to decouple the 2
models (business and architecture data models) and only possibly use the specific one (business model) "on paper" to explain things to shareholders
and alike...
There is no hurry because I think we don't want to deliver this before freezing the next release (ie in about a month) and it's a big task. But we can
already work on it by creating Jira/s and providing patches for review.
Please check and let me know your thoughts if needed
Thanks
Jacques
Le 17/11/2017 à 10:24, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
> Le 16/11/2017 à 07:05, Deepak Dixit a écrit :
>>>>> PartyRole is a technical entity as functional entity (it's border line
>> :) ). Prefer to manage this role lifespan information with
>> PartyRelationship and hidden PartyRole value to end user.
>>
>> You are right Nicolas, These kind of information should be managed in
>> PartyRelationship
>> entity,
>> In case of multi company A party can be in different role in different
>> organisation. So here PartyRole is not right candidate. These information
>> should be fetched from PartyRelationship.
>>
>> So +1 for removing FKs from EntityNameRole entities to PartyRole, and if
>> we do this we don;t need ensurePartyRole service, we can remove this
>> service as well or it can be used for different use cases
>>
>>
>> Thanks & Regards
>> --
>> Deepak Dixit
>> www.hotwaxsystems.com
>> www.hotwax.co
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
>> jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Suraj,
>>>
>>> Though it's obvious when you look at the figure 4 of
>>> http://www.universaldatamodels.com/Portals/9/udm_
>>> Publication_Articles_11_05_Models_Patterns.pdf
>>>
>>> I missed to say that I agree about removing the FK from EntityNameRole
>>> entities to PartyRole.
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 15/11/2017 à 17:38, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Hi Suraj, All,
>>>>
>>>> It makes sense to have roles of parties limited in time
>>>>
>>>> But unfortunately adding from/thru dates to PartyRole would entail
>>>> tremendous changes as Nicolas and Adrian and Gil in OFBIZ-5959 mentioned.
>>>>
>>>> We had this discussion so many times (with some variants and confusion:
>>>> http://ofbiz.markmail.org/search/?q=PartyRole+PartyRelationship) that I
>>>> feel the need to come to a definitive consensual agreement and write a wiki
>>>> page about it.
>>>>
>>>> I remember asking myself about all that during a custom project and
>>>> having difficulties to take a decision by myself.
>>>>
>>>> As you mentioned, I think the most interesting discussion is in
>>>> OFBIZ-5959 and we could built on that before taking a consensual decision
>>>> and writing a wiki page. Maybe we will need a vote for that...
>>>>
>>>> We definitively need a way to limit roles of parties in time, but then
>>>> why not simply use contextual EntityNameRole entities as it was suggested
>>>> in OFBIZ-5959
>>>>
>>>> About that, what do you think about my last comment at OFBIZ-5959:
>>>> https://s.apache.org/QXrl ?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 28/10/2017 à 10:25, Suraj Khurana a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Scott,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your response.
>>>>> In figure-4 he <http://www.universaldatamodels.com/Portals/9/udm_
>>>>> Publication_Articles_11_05_Models_Patterns.pdf>__re <
>>>>> http://www.universaldatamodels.com/Portals/9/udm_
>>>>> Publication_Articles_11_05_Models_Patterns.pdf>, it is specified that
>>>>> we do not need to manage partyRole entity as party role is specific to
>>>>> something (like work effort) i.e. party does not have a dependency on party
>>>>> role for the role in any entity.
>>>>> IMO, we should have PartyRole entity so that it becomes easy to filter
>>>>> parties in specific roles, but, on the other hand, we should not maintain
>>>>> this FK relationship while adding records to other entities like OrderRole,
>>>>> AdjustmentRole etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> One use case could be like I mentioned earlier, it becomes easy to
>>>>> filter parties in specific roles like suppliers, distributors etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Thanks and Regards
>>>>> *Suraj Khurana***| Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
>>>>> *HotWax Commerce* by *HotWax Systems*
>>>>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Scott Gray <
>>>>> scott.gray@hotwaxsystems.com <mailto:scott.gray@hotwaxsystems.com
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Suraj,
>>>>>
>>>>> I still haven't seen an example of a useful use case for adding
>>>>> from/thruDate fields to the PartyRole table. Did you have anything in mind
>>>>> that
>>>>> it might help with?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd honestly prefer to remove it rather than expand it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>> On 29 September 2017 at 20:41, Suraj Khurana <
>>>>> suraj.khurana@hotwaxsystems.com <mailto:suraj.khurana@hotwaxsystems.com
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> There has been already a discussion under OFBIZ-5959
>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959 <
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959>> regarding this.
>>>>> I would like to bring this point again into attention and would
>>>>> like to
>>>>> suggest that we should introduce lifespan to all such entities.
>>>>> Also, PartyRole FK constraint should be removed while adding a
>>>>> record of
>>>>> that party in any other role entity, earlier it was also
>>>>> discussed that it
>>>>> becomes cumbersome to manage that and there is not any specific
>>>>> need to
>>>>> have that in real time as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me know your thoughts on this.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Thanks and Regards
>>>>> *Suraj Khurana* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
>>>>> *HotWax Commerce* by *HotWax Systems*
>>>>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India
>>>>> 452010
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Suraj Khurana***| Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
>>>>> HotWax Commerce <http://www.hotwax.co/>by **HotWax Systems <
>>>>> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/>
>>>>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>>>>> Cell phone: +91 96697-50002
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://about.me/surajkhurana?promo=email_sig>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> HotWax Systems <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> recently received 8
>>>>> mentions in /*The Gartner Digital Commerce Vendor Guide, 2016 */by Gartner,
>>>>> Inc., the world's leading IT research and advisory company.
>>>>>
>>>>> Inline image 1
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Nicolas Malin <
>>>>> nicolas.malin@nereide.fr <ma...@nereide.fr>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Add lifespan to PartyRole seems to me just to complex perhaps
>>>>> impossible. If you want indicate (as example) that a party is a customer
>>>>> from / to
>>>>> with a lifespan on PartyRole they missing the information customer
>>>>> from who ?
>>>>>
>>>>> PartyRole is a technical entity as functional entity (it's border
>>>>> line :) ). Prefer to manage this role lifespan information with
>>>>> PartyRelationship and hidden PartyRole value to end user.
>>>>>
>>>>> A party with "bill to customer" role associate to an order would be
>>>>> for the system always a "bill to customer" and not only for the life order
>>>>> time. But in the other case, you can consider that this "bill to
>>>>> customer" is finish for your company and you can indicate this through
>>>>> PartyRelationship
>>>>>
>>>>> Nicolas
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 29/09/2017 à 10:00, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Suraj,
>>>>>
>>>>> I still haven't seen an example of a useful use case for adding
>>>>> from/thruDate fields to the PartyRole table. Did you have
>>>>> anything in mind
>>>>> that it might help with?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd honestly prefer to remove it rather than expand it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>> On 29 September 2017 at 20:41, Suraj Khurana <
>>>>> suraj.khurana@hotwaxsystems.com <mailto:suraj.khurana@hotwaxsy
>>>>> stems.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> There has been already a discussion under OFBIZ-5959
>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959 <
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959>> regarding this.
>>>>> I would like to bring this point again into attention and
>>>>> would like to
>>>>> suggest that we should introduce lifespan to all such
>>>>> entities.
>>>>> Also, PartyRole FK constraint should be removed while adding
>>>>> a record of
>>>>> that party in any other role entity, earlier it was also
>>>>> discussed that it
>>>>> becomes cumbersome to manage that and there is not any
>>>>> specific need to
>>>>> have that in real time as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me know your thoughts on this.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Thanks and Regards
>>>>> *Suraj Khurana* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
>>>>> *HotWax Commerce* by *HotWax Systems*
>>>>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India
>>>>> 452010
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
> Sounds like we are finally reaching a consensus. I suggest we create a Jira and write a wiki page on that when we will "all" agree and before we
> start working on this.
>
> Now I'd like to be sure we "all" agree, should we start a vote on this, or is the current near consensus enough?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
>
Re: All roleType entities should maintain lifespan
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Le 16/11/2017 à 07:05, Deepak Dixit a écrit :
>>>> PartyRole is a technical entity as functional entity (it's border line
> :) ). Prefer to manage this role lifespan information with
> PartyRelationship and hidden PartyRole value to end user.
>
> You are right Nicolas, These kind of information should be managed in
> PartyRelationship
> entity,
> In case of multi company A party can be in different role in different
> organisation. So here PartyRole is not right candidate. These information
> should be fetched from PartyRelationship.
>
> So +1 for removing FKs from EntityNameRole entities to PartyRole, and if
> we do this we don;t need ensurePartyRole service, we can remove this
> service as well or it can be used for different use cases
>
>
> Thanks & Regards
> --
> Deepak Dixit
> www.hotwaxsystems.com
> www.hotwax.co
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
> jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Suraj,
>>
>> Though it's obvious when you look at the figure 4 of
>> http://www.universaldatamodels.com/Portals/9/udm_
>> Publication_Articles_11_05_Models_Patterns.pdf
>>
>> I missed to say that I agree about removing the FK from EntityNameRole
>> entities to PartyRole.
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>> Le 15/11/2017 à 17:38, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi Suraj, All,
>>>
>>> It makes sense to have roles of parties limited in time
>>>
>>> But unfortunately adding from/thru dates to PartyRole would entail
>>> tremendous changes as Nicolas and Adrian and Gil in OFBIZ-5959 mentioned.
>>>
>>> We had this discussion so many times (with some variants and confusion:
>>> http://ofbiz.markmail.org/search/?q=PartyRole+PartyRelationship) that I
>>> feel the need to come to a definitive consensual agreement and write a wiki
>>> page about it.
>>>
>>> I remember asking myself about all that during a custom project and
>>> having difficulties to take a decision by myself.
>>>
>>> As you mentioned, I think the most interesting discussion is in
>>> OFBIZ-5959 and we could built on that before taking a consensual decision
>>> and writing a wiki page. Maybe we will need a vote for that...
>>>
>>> We definitively need a way to limit roles of parties in time, but then
>>> why not simply use contextual EntityNameRole entities as it was suggested
>>> in OFBIZ-5959
>>>
>>> About that, what do you think about my last comment at OFBIZ-5959:
>>> https://s.apache.org/QXrl ?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 28/10/2017 à 10:25, Suraj Khurana a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Hi Scott,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your response.
>>>> In figure-4 he <http://www.universaldatamodels.com/Portals/9/udm_
>>>> Publication_Articles_11_05_Models_Patterns.pdf>__re <
>>>> http://www.universaldatamodels.com/Portals/9/udm_
>>>> Publication_Articles_11_05_Models_Patterns.pdf>, it is specified that
>>>> we do not need to manage partyRole entity as party role is specific to
>>>> something (like work effort) i.e. party does not have a dependency on party
>>>> role for the role in any entity.
>>>> IMO, we should have PartyRole entity so that it becomes easy to filter
>>>> parties in specific roles, but, on the other hand, we should not maintain
>>>> this FK relationship while adding records to other entities like OrderRole,
>>>> AdjustmentRole etc.
>>>>
>>>> One use case could be like I mentioned earlier, it becomes easy to
>>>> filter parties in specific roles like suppliers, distributors etc.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks and Regards
>>>> *Suraj Khurana***| Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
>>>> *HotWax Commerce* by *HotWax Systems*
>>>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Scott Gray <
>>>> scott.gray@hotwaxsystems.com <mailto:scott.gray@hotwaxsystems.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Suraj,
>>>>
>>>> I still haven't seen an example of a useful use case for adding
>>>> from/thruDate fields to the PartyRole table. Did you have anything in mind
>>>> that
>>>> it might help with?
>>>>
>>>> I'd honestly prefer to remove it rather than expand it.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> On 29 September 2017 at 20:41, Suraj Khurana <
>>>> suraj.khurana@hotwaxsystems.com <mailto:suraj.khurana@hotwaxsystems.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> There has been already a discussion under OFBIZ-5959
>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959 <
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959>> regarding this.
>>>> I would like to bring this point again into attention and would
>>>> like to
>>>> suggest that we should introduce lifespan to all such entities.
>>>> Also, PartyRole FK constraint should be removed while adding a
>>>> record of
>>>> that party in any other role entity, earlier it was also
>>>> discussed that it
>>>> becomes cumbersome to manage that and there is not any specific
>>>> need to
>>>> have that in real time as well.
>>>>
>>>> Let me know your thoughts on this.
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks and Regards
>>>> *Suraj Khurana* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
>>>> *HotWax Commerce* by *HotWax Systems*
>>>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India
>>>> 452010
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Suraj Khurana***| Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
>>>> HotWax Commerce <http://www.hotwax.co/>by **HotWax Systems <
>>>> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/>
>>>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>>>> Cell phone: +91 96697-50002
>>>>
>>>> <https://about.me/surajkhurana?promo=email_sig>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> HotWax Systems <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> recently received 8
>>>> mentions in /*The Gartner Digital Commerce Vendor Guide, 2016 */by Gartner,
>>>> Inc., the world's leading IT research and advisory company.
>>>>
>>>> Inline image 1
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Nicolas Malin <
>>>> nicolas.malin@nereide.fr <ma...@nereide.fr>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Add lifespan to PartyRole seems to me just to complex perhaps
>>>> impossible. If you want indicate (as example) that a party is a customer
>>>> from / to
>>>> with a lifespan on PartyRole they missing the information customer
>>>> from who ?
>>>>
>>>> PartyRole is a technical entity as functional entity (it's border
>>>> line :) ). Prefer to manage this role lifespan information with
>>>> PartyRelationship and hidden PartyRole value to end user.
>>>>
>>>> A party with "bill to customer" role associate to an order would be
>>>> for the system always a "bill to customer" and not only for the life order
>>>> time. But in the other case, you can consider that this "bill to
>>>> customer" is finish for your company and you can indicate this through
>>>> PartyRelationship
>>>>
>>>> Nicolas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 29/09/2017 à 10:00, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Hi Suraj,
>>>>
>>>> I still haven't seen an example of a useful use case for adding
>>>> from/thruDate fields to the PartyRole table. Did you have
>>>> anything in mind
>>>> that it might help with?
>>>>
>>>> I'd honestly prefer to remove it rather than expand it.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> On 29 September 2017 at 20:41, Suraj Khurana <
>>>> suraj.khurana@hotwaxsystems.com <mailto:suraj.khurana@hotwaxsy
>>>> stems.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> There has been already a discussion under OFBIZ-5959
>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959 <
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959>> regarding this.
>>>> I would like to bring this point again into attention and
>>>> would like to
>>>> suggest that we should introduce lifespan to all such
>>>> entities.
>>>> Also, PartyRole FK constraint should be removed while adding
>>>> a record of
>>>> that party in any other role entity, earlier it was also
>>>> discussed that it
>>>> becomes cumbersome to manage that and there is not any
>>>> specific need to
>>>> have that in real time as well.
>>>>
>>>> Let me know your thoughts on this.
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks and Regards
>>>> *Suraj Khurana* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
>>>> *HotWax Commerce* by *HotWax Systems*
>>>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India
>>>> 452010
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
Sounds like we are finally reaching a consensus. I suggest we create a Jira and write a wiki page on that when we will "all" agree and before we start
working on this.
Now I'd like to be sure we "all" agree, should we start a vote on this, or is the current near consensus enough?
Thanks
Jacques
Re: All roleType entities should maintain lifespan
Posted by Deepak Dixit <de...@hotwaxsystems.com>.
>>>PartyRole is a technical entity as functional entity (it's border line
:) ). Prefer to manage this role lifespan information with
PartyRelationship and hidden PartyRole value to end user.
You are right Nicolas, These kind of information should be managed in
PartyRelationship
entity,
In case of multi company A party can be in different role in different
organisation. So here PartyRole is not right candidate. These information
should be fetched from PartyRelationship.
So +1 for removing FKs from EntityNameRole entities to PartyRole, and if
we do this we don;t need ensurePartyRole service, we can remove this
service as well or it can be used for different use cases
Thanks & Regards
--
Deepak Dixit
www.hotwaxsystems.com
www.hotwax.co
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com> wrote:
> Hi Suraj,
>
> Though it's obvious when you look at the figure 4 of
> http://www.universaldatamodels.com/Portals/9/udm_
> Publication_Articles_11_05_Models_Patterns.pdf
>
> I missed to say that I agree about removing the FK from EntityNameRole
> entities to PartyRole.
>
> Jacques
>
>
> Le 15/11/2017 à 17:38, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>
>> Hi Suraj, All,
>>
>> It makes sense to have roles of parties limited in time
>>
>> But unfortunately adding from/thru dates to PartyRole would entail
>> tremendous changes as Nicolas and Adrian and Gil in OFBIZ-5959 mentioned.
>>
>> We had this discussion so many times (with some variants and confusion:
>> http://ofbiz.markmail.org/search/?q=PartyRole+PartyRelationship) that I
>> feel the need to come to a definitive consensual agreement and write a wiki
>> page about it.
>>
>> I remember asking myself about all that during a custom project and
>> having difficulties to take a decision by myself.
>>
>> As you mentioned, I think the most interesting discussion is in
>> OFBIZ-5959 and we could built on that before taking a consensual decision
>> and writing a wiki page. Maybe we will need a vote for that...
>>
>> We definitively need a way to limit roles of parties in time, but then
>> why not simply use contextual EntityNameRole entities as it was suggested
>> in OFBIZ-5959
>>
>> About that, what do you think about my last comment at OFBIZ-5959:
>> https://s.apache.org/QXrl ?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>> Le 28/10/2017 à 10:25, Suraj Khurana a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi Scott,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your response.
>>> In figure-4 he <http://www.universaldatamodels.com/Portals/9/udm_
>>> Publication_Articles_11_05_Models_Patterns.pdf>__re <
>>> http://www.universaldatamodels.com/Portals/9/udm_
>>> Publication_Articles_11_05_Models_Patterns.pdf>, it is specified that
>>> we do not need to manage partyRole entity as party role is specific to
>>> something (like work effort) i.e. party does not have a dependency on party
>>> role for the role in any entity.
>>> IMO, we should have PartyRole entity so that it becomes easy to filter
>>> parties in specific roles, but, on the other hand, we should not maintain
>>> this FK relationship while adding records to other entities like OrderRole,
>>> AdjustmentRole etc.
>>>
>>> One use case could be like I mentioned earlier, it becomes easy to
>>> filter parties in specific roles like suppliers, distributors etc.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks and Regards
>>> *Suraj Khurana***| Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
>>> *HotWax Commerce* by *HotWax Systems*
>>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Scott Gray <
>>> scott.gray@hotwaxsystems.com <mailto:scott.gray@hotwaxsystems.com
>>> >> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Suraj,
>>>
>>> I still haven't seen an example of a useful use case for adding
>>> from/thruDate fields to the PartyRole table. Did you have anything in mind
>>> that
>>> it might help with?
>>>
>>> I'd honestly prefer to remove it rather than expand it.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> On 29 September 2017 at 20:41, Suraj Khurana <
>>> suraj.khurana@hotwaxsystems.com <mailto:suraj.khurana@hotwaxsystems.com
>>> >> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> There has been already a discussion under OFBIZ-5959
>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959 <
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959>> regarding this.
>>> I would like to bring this point again into attention and would
>>> like to
>>> suggest that we should introduce lifespan to all such entities.
>>> Also, PartyRole FK constraint should be removed while adding a
>>> record of
>>> that party in any other role entity, earlier it was also
>>> discussed that it
>>> becomes cumbersome to manage that and there is not any specific
>>> need to
>>> have that in real time as well.
>>>
>>> Let me know your thoughts on this.
>>> --
>>> Thanks and Regards
>>> *Suraj Khurana* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
>>> *HotWax Commerce* by *HotWax Systems*
>>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India
>>> 452010
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Suraj Khurana***| Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
>>> HotWax Commerce <http://www.hotwax.co/>by **HotWax Systems <
>>> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/>
>>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>>> Cell phone: +91 96697-50002
>>>
>>> <https://about.me/surajkhurana?promo=email_sig>
>>>
>>>
>>> HotWax Systems <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> recently received 8
>>> mentions in /*The Gartner Digital Commerce Vendor Guide, 2016 */by Gartner,
>>> Inc., the world's leading IT research and advisory company.
>>>
>>> Inline image 1
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Nicolas Malin <
>>> nicolas.malin@nereide.fr <ma...@nereide.fr>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Add lifespan to PartyRole seems to me just to complex perhaps
>>> impossible. If you want indicate (as example) that a party is a customer
>>> from / to
>>> with a lifespan on PartyRole they missing the information customer
>>> from who ?
>>>
>>> PartyRole is a technical entity as functional entity (it's border
>>> line :) ). Prefer to manage this role lifespan information with
>>> PartyRelationship and hidden PartyRole value to end user.
>>>
>>> A party with "bill to customer" role associate to an order would be
>>> for the system always a "bill to customer" and not only for the life order
>>> time. But in the other case, you can consider that this "bill to
>>> customer" is finish for your company and you can indicate this through
>>> PartyRelationship
>>>
>>> Nicolas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 29/09/2017 à 10:00, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>>
>>> Hi Suraj,
>>>
>>> I still haven't seen an example of a useful use case for adding
>>> from/thruDate fields to the PartyRole table. Did you have
>>> anything in mind
>>> that it might help with?
>>>
>>> I'd honestly prefer to remove it rather than expand it.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> On 29 September 2017 at 20:41, Suraj Khurana <
>>> suraj.khurana@hotwaxsystems.com <mailto:suraj.khurana@hotwaxsy
>>> stems.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> There has been already a discussion under OFBIZ-5959
>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959 <
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959>> regarding this.
>>> I would like to bring this point again into attention and
>>> would like to
>>> suggest that we should introduce lifespan to all such
>>> entities.
>>> Also, PartyRole FK constraint should be removed while adding
>>> a record of
>>> that party in any other role entity, earlier it was also
>>> discussed that it
>>> becomes cumbersome to manage that and there is not any
>>> specific need to
>>> have that in real time as well.
>>>
>>> Let me know your thoughts on this.
>>> --
>>> Thanks and Regards
>>> *Suraj Khurana* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
>>> *HotWax Commerce* by *HotWax Systems*
>>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India
>>> 452010
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: All roleType entities should maintain lifespan
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Hi Suraj,
Though it's obvious when you look at the figure 4 of http://www.universaldatamodels.com/Portals/9/udm_Publication_Articles_11_05_Models_Patterns.pdf
I missed to say that I agree about removing the FK from EntityNameRole entities to PartyRole.
Jacques
Le 15/11/2017 à 17:38, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
> Hi Suraj, All,
>
> It makes sense to have roles of parties limited in time
>
> But unfortunately adding from/thru dates to PartyRole would entail tremendous changes as Nicolas and Adrian and Gil in OFBIZ-5959 mentioned.
>
> We had this discussion so many times (with some variants and confusion: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/search/?q=PartyRole+PartyRelationship) that I feel
> the need to come to a definitive consensual agreement and write a wiki page about it.
>
> I remember asking myself about all that during a custom project and having difficulties to take a decision by myself.
>
> As you mentioned, I think the most interesting discussion is in OFBIZ-5959 and we could built on that before taking a consensual decision and
> writing a wiki page. Maybe we will need a vote for that...
>
> We definitively need a way to limit roles of parties in time, but then why not simply use contextual EntityNameRole entities as it was suggested in
> OFBIZ-5959
>
> About that, what do you think about my last comment at OFBIZ-5959: https://s.apache.org/QXrl ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
>
> Le 28/10/2017 à 10:25, Suraj Khurana a écrit :
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> Thanks for your response.
>> In figure-4 he <http://www.universaldatamodels.com/Portals/9/udm_Publication_Articles_11_05_Models_Patterns.pdf>__re
>> <http://www.universaldatamodels.com/Portals/9/udm_Publication_Articles_11_05_Models_Patterns.pdf>, it is specified that we do not need to manage
>> partyRole entity as party role is specific to something (like work effort) i.e. party does not have a dependency on party role for the role in any
>> entity.
>> IMO, we should have PartyRole entity so that it becomes easy to filter parties in specific roles, but, on the other hand, we should not maintain
>> this FK relationship while adding records to other entities like OrderRole, AdjustmentRole etc.
>>
>> One use case could be like I mentioned earlier, it becomes easy to filter parties in specific roles like suppliers, distributors etc.
>>
>> --
>> Thanks and Regards
>> *Suraj Khurana***| Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
>> *HotWax Commerce* by *HotWax Systems*
>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Scott Gray <scott.gray@hotwaxsystems.com <ma...@hotwaxsystems.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Suraj,
>>
>> I still haven't seen an example of a useful use case for adding from/thruDate fields to the PartyRole table. Did you have anything in mind that
>> it might help with?
>>
>> I'd honestly prefer to remove it rather than expand it.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 29 September 2017 at 20:41, Suraj Khurana <suraj.khurana@hotwaxsystems.com <ma...@hotwaxsystems.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> There has been already a discussion under OFBIZ-5959
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959>> regarding this.
>> I would like to bring this point again into attention and would like to
>> suggest that we should introduce lifespan to all such entities.
>> Also, PartyRole FK constraint should be removed while adding a record of
>> that party in any other role entity, earlier it was also discussed that it
>> becomes cumbersome to manage that and there is not any specific need to
>> have that in real time as well.
>>
>> Let me know your thoughts on this.
>> --
>> Thanks and Regards
>> *Suraj Khurana* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
>> *HotWax Commerce* by *HotWax Systems*
>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>>
>>
>>
>> *Suraj Khurana***| Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
>> HotWax Commerce <http://www.hotwax.co/>by **HotWax Systems <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/>
>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>> Cell phone: +91 96697-50002
>>
>> <https://about.me/surajkhurana?promo=email_sig>
>>
>>
>> HotWax Systems <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> recently received 8 mentions in /*The Gartner Digital Commerce Vendor Guide, 2016 */by Gartner,
>> Inc., the world's leading IT research and advisory company.
>>
>> Inline image 1
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Nicolas Malin <nicolas.malin@nereide.fr <ma...@nereide.fr>> wrote:
>>
>> Add lifespan to PartyRole seems to me just to complex perhaps impossible. If you want indicate (as example) that a party is a customer from / to
>> with a lifespan on PartyRole they missing the information customer from who ?
>>
>> PartyRole is a technical entity as functional entity (it's border line :) ). Prefer to manage this role lifespan information with
>> PartyRelationship and hidden PartyRole value to end user.
>>
>> A party with "bill to customer" role associate to an order would be for the system always a "bill to customer" and not only for the life order
>> time. But in the other case, you can consider that this "bill to customer" is finish for your company and you can indicate this through
>> PartyRelationship
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 29/09/2017 à 10:00, Scott Gray a écrit :
>>
>> Hi Suraj,
>>
>> I still haven't seen an example of a useful use case for adding
>> from/thruDate fields to the PartyRole table. Did you have anything in mind
>> that it might help with?
>>
>> I'd honestly prefer to remove it rather than expand it.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 29 September 2017 at 20:41, Suraj Khurana <
>> suraj.khurana@hotwaxsystems.com <ma...@hotwaxsystems.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> There has been already a discussion under OFBIZ-5959
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959>> regarding this.
>> I would like to bring this point again into attention and would like to
>> suggest that we should introduce lifespan to all such entities.
>> Also, PartyRole FK constraint should be removed while adding a record of
>> that party in any other role entity, earlier it was also discussed that it
>> becomes cumbersome to manage that and there is not any specific need to
>> have that in real time as well.
>>
>> Let me know your thoughts on this.
>> --
>> Thanks and Regards
>> *Suraj Khurana* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
>> *HotWax Commerce* by *HotWax Systems*
>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: All roleType entities should maintain lifespan
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Hi Suraj, All,
It makes sense to have roles of parties limited in time
But unfortunately adding from/thru dates to PartyRole would entail tremendous changes as Nicolas and Adrian and Gil in OFBIZ-5959 mentioned.
We had this discussion so many times (with some variants and confusion: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/search/?q=PartyRole+PartyRelationship) that I feel
the need to come to a definitive consensual agreement and write a wiki page about it.
I remember asking myself about all that during a custom project and having difficulties to take a decision by myself.
As you mentioned, I think the most interesting discussion is in OFBIZ-5959 and we could built on that before taking a consensual decision and writing
a wiki page. Maybe we will need a vote for that...
We definitively need a way to limit roles of parties in time, but then why not simply use contextual EntityNameRole entities as it was suggested in
OFBIZ-5959
About that, what do you think about my last comment at OFBIZ-5959: https://s.apache.org/QXrl ?
Thanks
Jacques
Le 28/10/2017 à 10:25, Suraj Khurana a écrit :
> Hi Scott,
>
> Thanks for your response.
> In figure-4 he <http://www.universaldatamodels.com/Portals/9/udm_Publication_Articles_11_05_Models_Patterns.pdf>__re
> <http://www.universaldatamodels.com/Portals/9/udm_Publication_Articles_11_05_Models_Patterns.pdf>, it is specified that we do not need to manage
> partyRole entity as party role is specific to something (like work effort) i.e. party does not have a dependency on party role for the role in any
> entity.
> IMO, we should have PartyRole entity so that it becomes easy to filter parties in specific roles, but, on the other hand, we should not maintain
> this FK relationship while adding records to other entities like OrderRole, AdjustmentRole etc.
>
> One use case could be like I mentioned earlier, it becomes easy to filter parties in specific roles like suppliers, distributors etc.
>
> --
> Thanks and Regards
> *Suraj Khurana***| Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
> *HotWax Commerce* by *HotWax Systems*
> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Scott Gray <scott.gray@hotwaxsystems.com <ma...@hotwaxsystems.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Suraj,
>
> I still haven't seen an example of a useful use case for adding from/thruDate fields to the PartyRole table. Did you have anything in mind that
> it might help with?
>
> I'd honestly prefer to remove it rather than expand it.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 29 September 2017 at 20:41, Suraj Khurana <suraj.khurana@hotwaxsystems.com <ma...@hotwaxsystems.com>> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> There has been already a discussion under OFBIZ-5959
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959>> regarding this.
> I would like to bring this point again into attention and would like to
> suggest that we should introduce lifespan to all such entities.
> Also, PartyRole FK constraint should be removed while adding a record of
> that party in any other role entity, earlier it was also discussed that it
> becomes cumbersome to manage that and there is not any specific need to
> have that in real time as well.
>
> Let me know your thoughts on this.
> --
> Thanks and Regards
> *Suraj Khurana* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
> *HotWax Commerce* by *HotWax Systems*
> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>
>
>
> *Suraj Khurana***| Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
> HotWax Commerce <http://www.hotwax.co/>by **HotWax Systems <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/>
> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
> Cell phone: +91 96697-50002
>
> <https://about.me/surajkhurana?promo=email_sig>
>
>
> HotWax Systems <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> recently received 8 mentions in /*The Gartner Digital Commerce Vendor Guide, 2016 */by Gartner, Inc.,
> the world's leading IT research and advisory company.
>
> Inline image 1
>
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Nicolas Malin <nicolas.malin@nereide.fr <ma...@nereide.fr>> wrote:
>
> Add lifespan to PartyRole seems to me just to complex perhaps impossible. If you want indicate (as example) that a party is a customer from / to
> with a lifespan on PartyRole they missing the information customer from who ?
>
> PartyRole is a technical entity as functional entity (it's border line :) ). Prefer to manage this role lifespan information with
> PartyRelationship and hidden PartyRole value to end user.
>
> A party with "bill to customer" role associate to an order would be for the system always a "bill to customer" and not only for the life order
> time. But in the other case, you can consider that this "bill to customer" is finish for your company and you can indicate this through
> PartyRelationship
>
> Nicolas
>
>
>
> Le 29/09/2017 à 10:00, Scott Gray a écrit :
>
> Hi Suraj,
>
> I still haven't seen an example of a useful use case for adding
> from/thruDate fields to the PartyRole table. Did you have anything in mind
> that it might help with?
>
> I'd honestly prefer to remove it rather than expand it.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 29 September 2017 at 20:41, Suraj Khurana <
> suraj.khurana@hotwaxsystems.com <ma...@hotwaxsystems.com>> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> There has been already a discussion under OFBIZ-5959
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959>> regarding this.
> I would like to bring this point again into attention and would like to
> suggest that we should introduce lifespan to all such entities.
> Also, PartyRole FK constraint should be removed while adding a record of
> that party in any other role entity, earlier it was also discussed that it
> becomes cumbersome to manage that and there is not any specific need to
> have that in real time as well.
>
> Let me know your thoughts on this.
> --
> Thanks and Regards
> *Suraj Khurana* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
> *HotWax Commerce* by *HotWax Systems*
> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>
>
>