You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@ofbiz.apache.org by Dave Tenerowicz <dt...@salmonllc.com> on 2007/09/11 00:03:59 UTC
Link Party
Can anyone tell me what the Link Party function under Party Manager does?
An implementation we are doing includes a significant number of customer
records that are duplicates. In these cases the same party may have
placed Orders under different partyId's. The client claims that
identification of duplicates can only be done by humans( I doubt this
!!, but that is another story). What they have requested is that we
develop a service that will assign all records related to one party to
another partyId. I am wondering if Link Party can be leveraged here.
Thanks for any input
--
Dave Tenerowicz
dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
Office: 303.493.6727
Mobile 303.906.6116
Fax 303.814.8330
Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
Re: Link Party
Posted by Bilgin Ibryam <bi...@iguanait.com>.
Sorry, i didnot get that it was related for ecommerce duplicate entries. I
need to prevent backend (mostly party manager) duplicate entries. And in
this situation a warning generated from a seca precheck will be enough. I
should go this way.
Thanks
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Link-Party-tf4418931.html#a12616026
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Link Party
Posted by Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>.
I did a pre-check (via SECA) that also asks for confirmation when a possible duplicate is detected.
But like I said, I just can't absolutely prevent users from entering duplicates!
Yes, the pre-check does help reduce instances of duplicates, since users are reminded about
already existing records.
At some point, we still need to reconcile duplicates caused by human error. I'm interested in this
particular process.
The case in discussion sounds like it has something to do with checkouts from ecommerce, where
anonymous shoppers create multiple userLogins. No way we can tell the anonymous shopper this: "Hi,
there's somebody else named Blah Bleh in our database. We'll show you all his details so you can
kindly confirm if that is really you?"
Jonathon
Bilgin Ibryam wrote:
>
> I also have the same need and idea for preventing duplicate person/customer
> entries but still no time for it. My idea was to write an event for checking
> some key fields like Jonathon said and if they already exist in the DB to
> require a confirmation before recording(duplicating) the new customer.
>
> Is it a good idea to have such a mechanism for precheck in ofbiz ? May be
> more generic one.
RE: Link Party
Posted by Skip <sk...@thedevers.org>.
I'll have the same duplicate removal requirement and am happy to split the
workload.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:jonw@improov.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 7:30 AM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: Link Party
Hmm. My very next project absolutely requires that. The duplicates don't
come from eCommerce, BUT
still... I'm not gonna prompt users about possible duplicates when they
enter data (want to
accelerate initial data entry effort).
I'll need a webtool for the admin (or other permitted parties) to
periodically reconcile duplicate
Party(s). Will be doing it soon.
Let me know what criteria should be checked? So far, I'm just thinking
"name, postal code,
birthdate, mobile phone number". Note that my application mandates the entry
of birthdate, not so
for ecommerce apps. Help me do something that is also usable by ecommerce
side?
Thanks.
Jonathon
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Yes this sounds interesting, to me at least. There is always plenty of
party duplicates coming from eCommerce.
>
> An administrator webtool as suggested by Jonathon may be interesting
too...
>
> Jacques
>
> De : "Bilgin Ibryam" <bi...@iguanait.com>
>>
>> I also have the same need and idea for preventing duplicate
person/customer
>> entries but still no time for it. My idea was to write an event for
checking
>> some key fields like Jonathon said and if they already exist in the DB to
>> require a confirmation before recording(duplicating) the new customer.
>>
>> Is it a good idea to have such a mechanism for precheck in ofbiz ? May be
>> more generic one.
>> --
>> View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Link-Party-tf4418931.html#a12612663
>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>
>
RE: Link Party
Posted by Skip <sk...@thedevers.org>.
I have the same needs for duplicate checker and am happy to split the
workload.
Skip
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:jonw@improov.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 7:30 AM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: Link Party
Hmm. My very next project absolutely requires that. The duplicates don't
come from eCommerce, BUT
still... I'm not gonna prompt users about possible duplicates when they
enter data (want to
accelerate initial data entry effort).
I'll need a webtool for the admin (or other permitted parties) to
periodically reconcile duplicate
Party(s). Will be doing it soon.
Let me know what criteria should be checked? So far, I'm just thinking
"name, postal code,
birthdate, mobile phone number". Note that my application mandates the entry
of birthdate, not so
for ecommerce apps. Help me do something that is also usable by ecommerce
side?
Thanks.
Jonathon
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Yes this sounds interesting, to me at least. There is always plenty of
party duplicates coming from eCommerce.
>
> An administrator webtool as suggested by Jonathon may be interesting
too...
>
> Jacques
>
> De : "Bilgin Ibryam" <bi...@iguanait.com>
>>
>> I also have the same need and idea for preventing duplicate
person/customer
>> entries but still no time for it. My idea was to write an event for
checking
>> some key fields like Jonathon said and if they already exist in the DB to
>> require a confirmation before recording(duplicating) the new customer.
>>
>> Is it a good idea to have such a mechanism for precheck in ofbiz ? May be
>> more generic one.
>> --
>> View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Link-Party-tf4418931.html#a12612663
>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>
>
Re: Link Party
Posted by Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>.
For the ecommerce side of things? Nice. Sort of like flagging possible duplicates for backend
handling.
Jonathon
BJ Freeman wrote:
> in the application I wrote for accepting real-time orders from a
> website, I have a service that is run to check different parms in the IP
> and address fields. It then sets the order to hold status if there are
> matches to the parms.
> this shows up in the order task list to be dealt with by a human.
>
> Jonathon -- Improov sent the following on 9/11/2007 7:29 AM:
>> Hmm. My very next project absolutely requires that. The duplicates don't
>> come from eCommerce, BUT still... I'm not gonna prompt users about
>> possible duplicates when they enter data (want to accelerate initial
>> data entry effort).
>>
>> I'll need a webtool for the admin (or other permitted parties) to
>> periodically reconcile duplicate Party(s). Will be doing it soon.
>>
>> Let me know what criteria should be checked? So far, I'm just thinking
>> "name, postal code, birthdate, mobile phone number". Note that my
>> application mandates the entry of birthdate, not so for ecommerce apps.
>> Help me do something that is also usable by ecommerce side?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Jonathon
>>
>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>> Yes this sounds interesting, to me at least. There is always plenty of
>>> party duplicates coming from eCommerce.
>>>
>>> An administrator webtool as suggested by Jonathon may be interesting
>>> too...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> De : "Bilgin Ibryam" <bi...@iguanait.com>
>>>> I also have the same need and idea for preventing duplicate
>>>> person/customer
>>>> entries but still no time for it. My idea was to write an event for
>>>> checking
>>>> some key fields like Jonathon said and if they already exist in the
>>>> DB to
>>>> require a confirmation before recording(duplicating) the new customer.
>>>>
>>>> Is it a good idea to have such a mechanism for precheck in ofbiz ?
>>>> May be
>>>> more generic one.
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://www.nabble.com/Link-Party-tf4418931.html#a12612663
>>>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Link Party
Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
in the application I wrote for accepting real-time orders from a
website, I have a service that is run to check different parms in the IP
and address fields. It then sets the order to hold status if there are
matches to the parms.
this shows up in the order task list to be dealt with by a human.
Jonathon -- Improov sent the following on 9/11/2007 7:29 AM:
> Hmm. My very next project absolutely requires that. The duplicates don't
> come from eCommerce, BUT still... I'm not gonna prompt users about
> possible duplicates when they enter data (want to accelerate initial
> data entry effort).
>
> I'll need a webtool for the admin (or other permitted parties) to
> periodically reconcile duplicate Party(s). Will be doing it soon.
>
> Let me know what criteria should be checked? So far, I'm just thinking
> "name, postal code, birthdate, mobile phone number". Note that my
> application mandates the entry of birthdate, not so for ecommerce apps.
> Help me do something that is also usable by ecommerce side?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jonathon
>
> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> Yes this sounds interesting, to me at least. There is always plenty of
>> party duplicates coming from eCommerce.
>>
>> An administrator webtool as suggested by Jonathon may be interesting
>> too...
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> De : "Bilgin Ibryam" <bi...@iguanait.com>
>>>
>>> I also have the same need and idea for preventing duplicate
>>> person/customer
>>> entries but still no time for it. My idea was to write an event for
>>> checking
>>> some key fields like Jonathon said and if they already exist in the
>>> DB to
>>> require a confirmation before recording(duplicating) the new customer.
>>>
>>> Is it a good idea to have such a mechanism for precheck in ofbiz ?
>>> May be
>>> more generic one.
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://www.nabble.com/Link-Party-tf4418931.html#a12612663
>>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: Link Party
Posted by Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>.
Hmm. My very next project absolutely requires that. The duplicates don't come from eCommerce, BUT
still... I'm not gonna prompt users about possible duplicates when they enter data (want to
accelerate initial data entry effort).
I'll need a webtool for the admin (or other permitted parties) to periodically reconcile duplicate
Party(s). Will be doing it soon.
Let me know what criteria should be checked? So far, I'm just thinking "name, postal code,
birthdate, mobile phone number". Note that my application mandates the entry of birthdate, not so
for ecommerce apps. Help me do something that is also usable by ecommerce side?
Thanks.
Jonathon
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Yes this sounds interesting, to me at least. There is always plenty of party duplicates coming from eCommerce.
>
> An administrator webtool as suggested by Jonathon may be interesting too...
>
> Jacques
>
> De : "Bilgin Ibryam" <bi...@iguanait.com>
>>
>> I also have the same need and idea for preventing duplicate person/customer
>> entries but still no time for it. My idea was to write an event for checking
>> some key fields like Jonathon said and if they already exist in the DB to
>> require a confirmation before recording(duplicating) the new customer.
>>
>> Is it a good idea to have such a mechanism for precheck in ofbiz ? May be
>> more generic one.
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Link-Party-tf4418931.html#a12612663
>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>
>
Re: Link Party
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Yes this sounds interesting, to me at least. There is always plenty of party duplicates coming from eCommerce.
An administrator webtool as suggested by Jonathon may be interesting too...
Jacques
De : "Bilgin Ibryam" <bi...@iguanait.com>
>
>
> I also have the same need and idea for preventing duplicate person/customer
> entries but still no time for it. My idea was to write an event for checking
> some key fields like Jonathon said and if they already exist in the DB to
> require a confirmation before recording(duplicating) the new customer.
>
> Is it a good idea to have such a mechanism for precheck in ofbiz ? May be
> more generic one.
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Link-Party-tf4418931.html#a12612663
> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: Link Party
Posted by Bilgin Ibryam <bi...@iguanait.com>.
I also have the same need and idea for preventing duplicate person/customer
entries but still no time for it. My idea was to write an event for checking
some key fields like Jonathon said and if they already exist in the DB to
require a confirmation before recording(duplicating) the new customer.
Is it a good idea to have such a mechanism for precheck in ofbiz ? May be
more generic one.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Link-Party-tf4418931.html#a12612663
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Link Party
Posted by Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>.
IMO, the problem with "mere linkage" is that there'd be so many scattered pieces of data to stitch
together. Data retrieval or traversal will get a little heavy.
Might be better to simply reconcile duplicate Party(s) into one Party, and drop the duplicates
thereafter.
That said, I think the Link function can still work very nicely as an interim measure. Or even as
a permanent measure, if you don't mind having to keep track of scattered pieces of data. One
possible snag is when you perform a "lookup" function, say like "Find all Party(s) with name like
Blah". Your "lookup" function must consider linked Party(s) (aka duplicates), and NOT return those
results.
Jonathon
Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
> Yes, that's what we'll be doing.
> IP address and visitorId would not be useful, since (in Phase 1) this is
> strictly an order taking function via sales reps- so there is no party
> specific IP address or visitorId.
> Thanks for the suggestions though!
>
> I gather that the Link function would offer no benefit for this, since
> no one has mentioned it??
>
> -Dave
>
> David E Jones wrote:
>>
>> I think most companies do it by comparing things like name, phone
>> number, address, etc.
>>
>> Not sure where the IP address idea came from...
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>> What's the usual way to reconcile duplicates in Party(s)? Like if we
>>> have multiple Party(s) for the same person.
>>>
>>> Perhaps have an administrator click a button that pools together
>>> suspected duplicate Party(s)? The administrator can then transfer all
>>> related records from one duplicate to another, possibly with audit
>>> trails intact too. Sounds like heavy coding work, though.
>>>
>>> I'll need to handle the above, since there is no way I can prevent a
>>> user from creating duplicate Party(s).
>>>
>>> Or more strictly prevent duplicates in the first place? Maybe I can
>>> have like a "3-point comparison" function that decides whether the
>>> user is entering duplicate data. I suppose I can dictate that there
>>> can be no duplicates in "name and postal code and mobile phone number
>>> (plus any other super-personal details)".
>>>
>>> Jonathon
>>>
>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The visitorId may be more reliable... at least you know it's the
>>>> same browser with that. See the Visitor table and related
>>>> functionality.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> skip@theDevers wrote:
>>>>> When IP addresses are typically assigned dynamically, I doubt this
>>>>> will be
>>>>> useful. Better to store a back resolved host name if you can get one.
>>>>> Still not infallible if two users use the same machine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Skip
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:22 PM
>>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: Link Party
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> An IP of each order is recorded.
>>>>> you may be able to have a service the links orders by iP address.
>>>>> this is not infallible but can help.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz sent the following on 9/10/2007 3:03 PM:
>>>>>> Can anyone tell me what the Link Party function under Party
>>>>>> Manager does?
>>>>>> An implementation we are doing includes a significant number of
>>>>>> customer
>>>>>> records that are duplicates. In these cases the same party may have
>>>>>> placed Orders under different partyId's. The client claims that
>>>>>> identification of duplicates can only be done by humans( I doubt
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> !!, but that is another story). What they have requested is that we
>>>>>> develop a service that will assign all records related to one
>>>>>> party to
>>>>>> another partyId. I am wondering if Link Party can be leveraged here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for any input
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.15/1002 - Release Date: 9/11/2007 5:46 PM
Re: Link Party
Posted by Dave Tenerowicz <dt...@salmonllc.com>.
Yes, that's what we'll be doing.
IP address and visitorId would not be useful, since (in Phase 1) this is
strictly an order taking function via sales reps- so there is no party
specific IP address or visitorId.
Thanks for the suggestions though!
I gather that the Link function would offer no benefit for this, since
no one has mentioned it??
-Dave
David E Jones wrote:
>
> I think most companies do it by comparing things like name, phone
> number, address, etc.
>
> Not sure where the IP address idea came from...
>
> -David
>
>
> Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>> What's the usual way to reconcile duplicates in Party(s)? Like if we
>> have multiple Party(s) for the same person.
>>
>> Perhaps have an administrator click a button that pools together
>> suspected duplicate Party(s)? The administrator can then transfer all
>> related records from one duplicate to another, possibly with audit
>> trails intact too. Sounds like heavy coding work, though.
>>
>> I'll need to handle the above, since there is no way I can prevent a
>> user from creating duplicate Party(s).
>>
>> Or more strictly prevent duplicates in the first place? Maybe I can
>> have like a "3-point comparison" function that decides whether the
>> user is entering duplicate data. I suppose I can dictate that there
>> can be no duplicates in "name and postal code and mobile phone number
>> (plus any other super-personal details)".
>>
>> Jonathon
>>
>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> The visitorId may be more reliable... at least you know it's the
>>> same browser with that. See the Visitor table and related
>>> functionality.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> skip@theDevers wrote:
>>>> When IP addresses are typically assigned dynamically, I doubt this
>>>> will be
>>>> useful. Better to store a back resolved host name if you can get one.
>>>> Still not infallible if two users use the same machine.
>>>>
>>>> Skip
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>>>> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:22 PM
>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Link Party
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An IP of each order is recorded.
>>>> you may be able to have a service the links orders by iP address.
>>>> this is not infallible but can help.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dave Tenerowicz sent the following on 9/10/2007 3:03 PM:
>>>>> Can anyone tell me what the Link Party function under Party
>>>>> Manager does?
>>>>> An implementation we are doing includes a significant number of
>>>>> customer
>>>>> records that are duplicates. In these cases the same party may have
>>>>> placed Orders under different partyId's. The client claims that
>>>>> identification of duplicates can only be done by humans( I doubt
>>>>> this
>>>>> !!, but that is another story). What they have requested is that we
>>>>> develop a service that will assign all records related to one
>>>>> party to
>>>>> another partyId. I am wondering if Link Party can be leveraged here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for any input
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
--
Dave Tenerowicz
dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
Office: 303.493.6727
Mobile 303.906.6116
Fax 303.814.8330
Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
Re: Link Party
Posted by David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
I think most companies do it by comparing things like name, phone number, address, etc.
Not sure where the IP address idea came from...
-David
Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> What's the usual way to reconcile duplicates in Party(s)? Like if we
> have multiple Party(s) for the same person.
>
> Perhaps have an administrator click a button that pools together
> suspected duplicate Party(s)? The administrator can then transfer all
> related records from one duplicate to another, possibly with audit
> trails intact too. Sounds like heavy coding work, though.
>
> I'll need to handle the above, since there is no way I can prevent a
> user from creating duplicate Party(s).
>
> Or more strictly prevent duplicates in the first place? Maybe I can have
> like a "3-point comparison" function that decides whether the user is
> entering duplicate data. I suppose I can dictate that there can be no
> duplicates in "name and postal code and mobile phone number (plus any
> other super-personal details)".
>
> Jonathon
>
> David E Jones wrote:
>>
>> The visitorId may be more reliable... at least you know it's the same
>> browser with that. See the Visitor table and related functionality.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> skip@theDevers wrote:
>>> When IP addresses are typically assigned dynamically, I doubt this
>>> will be
>>> useful. Better to store a back resolved host name if you can get one.
>>> Still not infallible if two users use the same machine.
>>>
>>> Skip
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>>> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:22 PM
>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Link Party
>>>
>>>
>>> An IP of each order is recorded.
>>> you may be able to have a service the links orders by iP address.
>>> this is not infallible but can help.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dave Tenerowicz sent the following on 9/10/2007 3:03 PM:
>>>> Can anyone tell me what the Link Party function under Party Manager
>>>> does?
>>>> An implementation we are doing includes a significant number of
>>>> customer
>>>> records that are duplicates. In these cases the same party may have
>>>> placed Orders under different partyId's. The client claims that
>>>> identification of duplicates can only be done by humans( I doubt this
>>>> !!, but that is another story). What they have requested is that we
>>>> develop a service that will assign all records related to one party to
>>>> another partyId. I am wondering if Link Party can be leveraged here.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for any input
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Link Party
Posted by Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>.
What's the usual way to reconcile duplicates in Party(s)? Like if we have multiple Party(s) for
the same person.
Perhaps have an administrator click a button that pools together suspected duplicate Party(s)? The
administrator can then transfer all related records from one duplicate to another, possibly with
audit trails intact too. Sounds like heavy coding work, though.
I'll need to handle the above, since there is no way I can prevent a user from creating duplicate
Party(s).
Or more strictly prevent duplicates in the first place? Maybe I can have like a "3-point
comparison" function that decides whether the user is entering duplicate data. I suppose I can
dictate that there can be no duplicates in "name and postal code and mobile phone number (plus any
other super-personal details)".
Jonathon
David E Jones wrote:
>
> The visitorId may be more reliable... at least you know it's the same
> browser with that. See the Visitor table and related functionality.
>
> -David
>
>
> skip@theDevers wrote:
>> When IP addresses are typically assigned dynamically, I doubt this
>> will be
>> useful. Better to store a back resolved host name if you can get one.
>> Still not infallible if two users use the same machine.
>>
>> Skip
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:22 PM
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Link Party
>>
>>
>> An IP of each order is recorded.
>> you may be able to have a service the links orders by iP address.
>> this is not infallible but can help.
>>
>>
>> Dave Tenerowicz sent the following on 9/10/2007 3:03 PM:
>>> Can anyone tell me what the Link Party function under Party Manager
>>> does?
>>> An implementation we are doing includes a significant number of customer
>>> records that are duplicates. In these cases the same party may have
>>> placed Orders under different partyId's. The client claims that
>>> identification of duplicates can only be done by humans( I doubt this
>>> !!, but that is another story). What they have requested is that we
>>> develop a service that will assign all records related to one party to
>>> another partyId. I am wondering if Link Party can be leveraged here.
>>>
>>> Thanks for any input
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: Link Party
Posted by David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
The visitorId may be more reliable... at least you know it's the same browser with that. See the Visitor table and related functionality.
-David
skip@theDevers wrote:
> When IP addresses are typically assigned dynamically, I doubt this will be
> useful. Better to store a back resolved host name if you can get one.
> Still not infallible if two users use the same machine.
>
> Skip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:22 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Link Party
>
>
> An IP of each order is recorded.
> you may be able to have a service the links orders by iP address.
> this is not infallible but can help.
>
>
> Dave Tenerowicz sent the following on 9/10/2007 3:03 PM:
>> Can anyone tell me what the Link Party function under Party Manager does?
>> An implementation we are doing includes a significant number of customer
>> records that are duplicates. In these cases the same party may have
>> placed Orders under different partyId's. The client claims that
>> identification of duplicates can only be done by humans( I doubt this
>> !!, but that is another story). What they have requested is that we
>> develop a service that will assign all records related to one party to
>> another partyId. I am wondering if Link Party can be leveraged here.
>>
>> Thanks for any input
>>
>
Re: Link Party
Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
dynamically assigned are usually only 256 so a class c scan is possible.
if the Host is a DHCP server it could have many blocks.
a lot of times for fraud checking, the normal data is changed, like
name, phone, address.
and we have customers that have more than one shipping address, phone
so just comparing names can be a problem, like john smith.
skip@theDevers sent the following on 9/10/2007 10:42 PM:
> When IP addresses are typically assigned dynamically, I doubt this will be
> useful. Better to store a back resolved host name if you can get one.
> Still not infallible if two users use the same machine.
>
> Skip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:22 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Link Party
>
>
> An IP of each order is recorded.
> you may be able to have a service the links orders by iP address.
> this is not infallible but can help.
>
>
> Dave Tenerowicz sent the following on 9/10/2007 3:03 PM:
>> Can anyone tell me what the Link Party function under Party Manager does?
>> An implementation we are doing includes a significant number of customer
>> records that are duplicates. In these cases the same party may have
>> placed Orders under different partyId's. The client claims that
>> identification of duplicates can only be done by humans( I doubt this
>> !!, but that is another story). What they have requested is that we
>> develop a service that will assign all records related to one party to
>> another partyId. I am wondering if Link Party can be leveraged here.
>>
>> Thanks for any input
>>
>
>
>
>
RE: Link Party
Posted by "skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>.
When IP addresses are typically assigned dynamically, I doubt this will be
useful. Better to store a back resolved host name if you can get one.
Still not infallible if two users use the same machine.
Skip
-----Original Message-----
From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:22 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: Link Party
An IP of each order is recorded.
you may be able to have a service the links orders by iP address.
this is not infallible but can help.
Dave Tenerowicz sent the following on 9/10/2007 3:03 PM:
> Can anyone tell me what the Link Party function under Party Manager does?
> An implementation we are doing includes a significant number of customer
> records that are duplicates. In these cases the same party may have
> placed Orders under different partyId's. The client claims that
> identification of duplicates can only be done by humans( I doubt this
> !!, but that is another story). What they have requested is that we
> develop a service that will assign all records related to one party to
> another partyId. I am wondering if Link Party can be leveraged here.
>
> Thanks for any input
>
Re: Link Party
Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
An IP of each order is recorded.
you may be able to have a service the links orders by iP address.
this is not infallible but can help.
Dave Tenerowicz sent the following on 9/10/2007 3:03 PM:
> Can anyone tell me what the Link Party function under Party Manager does?
> An implementation we are doing includes a significant number of customer
> records that are duplicates. In these cases the same party may have
> placed Orders under different partyId's. The client claims that
> identification of duplicates can only be done by humans( I doubt this
> !!, but that is another story). What they have requested is that we
> develop a service that will assign all records related to one party to
> another partyId. I am wondering if Link Party can be leveraged here.
>
> Thanks for any input
>