You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Al Byers <by...@automationgroups.com> on 2006/07/10 15:33:45 UTC
Need for ProductRole
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
Re: Need for ProductRole
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.
This is how I pictured my initial idea:
ProductRelationship Entity
--------------------------
ProductId
PartyRoleId
PartyId
Product ProductRelationship Party
-------- -------------------- -----------------------
_ SUPPLIER_ROLE ABC Materials Supply
Widget _/_ MANUFACT_ROLE XYZ Manufacturing
\_ CONSUMER_ROLE Lillian Gomez
So, any number of parties in any number of roles can be associated with a product.
David E. Jones wrote:
>
> Yeah, ProductCategoryRole might be a good model for multiple
> manufacturers as well, but in a way it would be nice if it were more
> directly associated with a Product... so I can see that being a possible
> way to go as well. I guess it depends on how it would actually be used
> by the people and the automated processes... Is this something that
> anyone actually has a need and scenarios for right now?
>
> -David
>
>
> Adrian Crum wrote:
>
>> I'm looking over David's suggestion of using ProductCategoryRole.
>> Multiple manufacturers could be handled that way - then just ignore
>> the manufacturer field in Product.
>>
>> So, we could have a Product Category called "XYZ Manufacturing
>> Products" then the products they manufacture could be linked to that
>> category. The company itself can be linked to the category through the
>> party ID in the role of manufacturer.
>>
>> Manufacturers and Suppliers are different parties, btw. A supplier
>> could provide the same part from several manufacturers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>
>>> Technically, I would think you should make them two
>>> separate products and then relate the two products as
>>> equivelents. But of course that depends on how
>>> detailed the company wants to be. Aside from making
>>> them two seperate products, you could treat the
>>> manufacturers as seperate suppliers for the same
>>> generic product.
>>>
>>> However, I can think of an example where the current
>>> structure is limiting. When the manufacturer or
>>> product line is acquired by another company.
>>>
>>> --- Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> There are many examples of standard products that
>>>> can come from multiple manufacturers. If I have a hardware store and
>>>> I sell
>>>> 3/4 inch galvanized pipe tees, they could come from three or four
>>>> different
>>>> manufacturers. Should I have a separate 3/4 inch galvanized tee
>>>> product for each
>>>> manufacturer? I hope not! I used the example of electronic
>>>> components the last
>>>> time this was discussed - the same holds true there.
>>>>
>>>> It IS a limitation. It will come up again, and when
>>>> it does, I'll continue to make the same suggestion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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 <ad...@hlmksw.com> 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 <ad...@hlmksw.com> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
Re: Need for ProductRole
Posted by Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>.
Without getting into the lack of control that exists
when honoring warranties on unserializable product
(that is of concern to the mfg, not your project), you
would probably want to utilize the internal name in
the BOM instead of the productId. In many scenarios,
the productId shouldn't be the basis of an order
entry. The only reason why I'm suggesting is that
you're considering it as mutually exclusive
alternatives. When there's a solution that encompases
the best of both worlds. Namely, simplification for
the purchasing clerks, and accuracy in your purchasing
history.
--- Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com> wrote:
> Faucets are not serialized.
>
> Six purchasing clerks have memorized part numbers
> for commonly ordered parts.
> They're not going to like the idea of having to
> memorize new part numbers every
> time a manufacturer changes.
>
> Bill Of Materials use the same part numbers. Every
> assembly that uses a faucet
> would have to be changed when the manufacturer
> changes.
>
> I view the manufacturer of a component as a kind of
> meta data - not worth
> creating a separate product for.
>
>
> Chris Howe wrote:
>
> > It's obviously not my project, but I would think
> in
> > that scenario, were warranty information is
> important,
> > you would definately want to track them as
> seperate
> > products. Otherwise you're forced to create your
> > reports by custom time periods that are more prone
> to
> > innacuracy. Isn't this product already going to
> be
> > serialized? If you're going to that specificity,
> why
> > go back toward generics?
> >
> > --- Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>We use manufacturer information in the components
> >>that go into our homes.
> >>
> >>For instance, one "Product" would be a bathroom
> sink
> >>faucet. For simplicity, we
> >>refer to it as a bathroom sink faucet - no mention
> >>of manufacturer. Depending
> >>upon the year and the current style, the bathroom
> >>sink faucet may be
> >>manufactured by different companies. This year
> it's
> >>Kohler, five years ago
> >>it was Price-Pfister. Our suppliers know we will
> >>accept only the the brand we
> >>use currently.
> >>
> >>So, whenever we look up bathroom sink faucet we
> need
> >>to know which manufacturer
> >>was used and when. If we're sticking to a single
> >>generic product, then that
> >>means we need to link it to two manufacturers.
> >>
> >>Historical information is crucial for warranty
> >>service issues. If a homeowner
> >>calls about a failed bathroom sink faucet, we can
> >>find out the manufacturer
> >>based upon the date the home was manufactured. (In
> >>real life the homeowner would
> >>just run down to Home Depot for a replacement, but
> >>the process would apply for
> >>other items.)
> >>
> >>Is this an immediate need here? No. If the
> >>capability doesn't make it into the
> >>project before I address it here, then I'll just
> >>make the mods and contribute
> >>them back.
> >>
> >>
> >>David E. Jones wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Yeah, ProductCategoryRole might be a good model
> >>
> >>for multiple
> >>
> >>>manufacturers as well, but in a way it would be
> >>
> >>nice if it were more
> >>
> >>>directly associated with a Product... so I can
> see
> >>
> >>that being a possible
> >>
> >>>way to go as well. I guess it depends on how it
> >>
> >>would actually be used
> >>
> >>>by the people and the automated processes... Is
> >>
> >>this something that
> >>
> >>>anyone actually has a need and scenarios for
> right
> >>
> >>now?
> >>
> >>>-David
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Adrian Crum wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I'm looking over David's suggestion of using
> >>
> >>ProductCategoryRole.
> >>
> >>>>Multiple manufacturers could be handled that way
> >>
> >>- then just ignore
> >>
> >>>>the manufacturer field in Product.
> >>>>
> >>>>So, we could have a Product Category called "XYZ
> >>
> >>Manufacturing
> >>
> >>>>Products" then the products they manufacture
> >>
> >>could be linked to that
> >>
> >>>>category. The company itself can be linked to
> the
> >>
> >>category through the
> >>
> >>>>party ID in the role of manufacturer.
> >>>>
> >>>>Manufacturers and Suppliers are different
> >>
> >>parties, btw. A supplier
> >>
> >>>>could provide the same part from several
> >>
> >>manufacturers.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Chris Howe wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Technically, I would think you should make them
> >>
> >>two
> >>
> >>>>>separate products and then relate the two
> >>
> >>products as
> >>
> >>>>>equivelents. But of course that depends on how
> >>>>>detailed the company wants to be. Aside from
> >>
> >>making
> >>
> >>>>>them two seperate products, you could treat the
> >>>>>manufacturers as seperate suppliers for the
> same
> >>>>>generic product.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>However, I can think of an example where the
> >>
> >>current
> >>
> >>>>>structure is limiting. When the manufacturer
> or
> >>>>>product line is acquired by another company.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>--- Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>There are many examples of standard products
> >>
> >>that
> >>
> >>>>>>can come from multiple manufacturers. If I
> have
> >>
> >>a hardware store and
> >>
> >>>>>>I sell
> >>>>>>3/4 inch galvanized pipe tees, they could come
> >>
> >>from three or four
> >>
> >>>>>>different
> >>>>>>manufacturers. Should I have a separate 3/4
> >>
> >>inch galvanized tee
> >>
>
=== message truncated ===
Re: Need for ProductRole
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.
Faucets are not serialized.
Six purchasing clerks have memorized part numbers for commonly ordered parts.
They're not going to like the idea of having to memorize new part numbers every
time a manufacturer changes.
Bill Of Materials use the same part numbers. Every assembly that uses a faucet
would have to be changed when the manufacturer changes.
I view the manufacturer of a component as a kind of meta data - not worth
creating a separate product for.
Chris Howe wrote:
> It's obviously not my project, but I would think in
> that scenario, were warranty information is important,
> you would definately want to track them as seperate
> products. Otherwise you're forced to create your
> reports by custom time periods that are more prone to
> innacuracy. Isn't this product already going to be
> serialized? If you're going to that specificity, why
> go back toward generics?
>
> --- Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com> wrote:
>
>
>>We use manufacturer information in the components
>>that go into our homes.
>>
>>For instance, one "Product" would be a bathroom sink
>>faucet. For simplicity, we
>>refer to it as a bathroom sink faucet - no mention
>>of manufacturer. Depending
>>upon the year and the current style, the bathroom
>>sink faucet may be
>>manufactured by different companies. This year it's
>>Kohler, five years ago
>>it was Price-Pfister. Our suppliers know we will
>>accept only the the brand we
>>use currently.
>>
>>So, whenever we look up bathroom sink faucet we need
>>to know which manufacturer
>>was used and when. If we're sticking to a single
>>generic product, then that
>>means we need to link it to two manufacturers.
>>
>>Historical information is crucial for warranty
>>service issues. If a homeowner
>>calls about a failed bathroom sink faucet, we can
>>find out the manufacturer
>>based upon the date the home was manufactured. (In
>>real life the homeowner would
>>just run down to Home Depot for a replacement, but
>>the process would apply for
>>other items.)
>>
>>Is this an immediate need here? No. If the
>>capability doesn't make it into the
>>project before I address it here, then I'll just
>>make the mods and contribute
>>them back.
>>
>>
>>David E. Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yeah, ProductCategoryRole might be a good model
>>
>>for multiple
>>
>>>manufacturers as well, but in a way it would be
>>
>>nice if it were more
>>
>>>directly associated with a Product... so I can see
>>
>>that being a possible
>>
>>>way to go as well. I guess it depends on how it
>>
>>would actually be used
>>
>>>by the people and the automated processes... Is
>>
>>this something that
>>
>>>anyone actually has a need and scenarios for right
>>
>>now?
>>
>>>-David
>>>
>>>
>>>Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm looking over David's suggestion of using
>>
>>ProductCategoryRole.
>>
>>>>Multiple manufacturers could be handled that way
>>
>>- then just ignore
>>
>>>>the manufacturer field in Product.
>>>>
>>>>So, we could have a Product Category called "XYZ
>>
>>Manufacturing
>>
>>>>Products" then the products they manufacture
>>
>>could be linked to that
>>
>>>>category. The company itself can be linked to the
>>
>>category through the
>>
>>>>party ID in the role of manufacturer.
>>>>
>>>>Manufacturers and Suppliers are different
>>
>>parties, btw. A supplier
>>
>>>>could provide the same part from several
>>
>>manufacturers.
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Technically, I would think you should make them
>>
>>two
>>
>>>>>separate products and then relate the two
>>
>>products as
>>
>>>>>equivelents. But of course that depends on how
>>>>>detailed the company wants to be. Aside from
>>
>>making
>>
>>>>>them two seperate products, you could treat the
>>>>>manufacturers as seperate suppliers for the same
>>>>>generic product.
>>>>>
>>>>>However, I can think of an example where the
>>
>>current
>>
>>>>>structure is limiting. When the manufacturer or
>>>>>product line is acquired by another company.
>>>>>
>>>>>--- Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>There are many examples of standard products
>>
>>that
>>
>>>>>>can come from multiple manufacturers. If I have
>>
>>a hardware store and
>>
>>>>>>I sell
>>>>>>3/4 inch galvanized pipe tees, they could come
>>
>>from three or four
>>
>>>>>>different
>>>>>>manufacturers. Should I have a separate 3/4
>>
>>inch galvanized tee
>>
>>>>>>product for each
>>>>>>manufacturer? I hope not! I used the example of
>>
>>electronic
>>
>>>>>>components the last
>>>>>>time this was discussed - the same holds true
>>
>>there.
>>
>>>>>>It IS a limitation. It will come up again, and
>>
>>when
>>
>>>>>>it does, I'll continue to make the same
>>
>>suggestion.
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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 <ad...@hlmksw.com> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
Re: Need for ProductRole
Posted by Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>.
It's obviously not my project, but I would think in
that scenario, were warranty information is important,
you would definately want to track them as seperate
products. Otherwise you're forced to create your
reports by custom time periods that are more prone to
innacuracy. Isn't this product already going to be
serialized? If you're going to that specificity, why
go back toward generics?
--- Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com> wrote:
> We use manufacturer information in the components
> that go into our homes.
>
> For instance, one "Product" would be a bathroom sink
> faucet. For simplicity, we
> refer to it as a bathroom sink faucet - no mention
> of manufacturer. Depending
> upon the year and the current style, the bathroom
> sink faucet may be
> manufactured by different companies. This year it's
> Kohler, five years ago
> it was Price-Pfister. Our suppliers know we will
> accept only the the brand we
> use currently.
>
> So, whenever we look up bathroom sink faucet we need
> to know which manufacturer
> was used and when. If we're sticking to a single
> generic product, then that
> means we need to link it to two manufacturers.
>
> Historical information is crucial for warranty
> service issues. If a homeowner
> calls about a failed bathroom sink faucet, we can
> find out the manufacturer
> based upon the date the home was manufactured. (In
> real life the homeowner would
> just run down to Home Depot for a replacement, but
> the process would apply for
> other items.)
>
> Is this an immediate need here? No. If the
> capability doesn't make it into the
> project before I address it here, then I'll just
> make the mods and contribute
> them back.
>
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
>
> >
> > Yeah, ProductCategoryRole might be a good model
> for multiple
> > manufacturers as well, but in a way it would be
> nice if it were more
> > directly associated with a Product... so I can see
> that being a possible
> > way to go as well. I guess it depends on how it
> would actually be used
> > by the people and the automated processes... Is
> this something that
> > anyone actually has a need and scenarios for right
> now?
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> > Adrian Crum wrote:
> >
> >> I'm looking over David's suggestion of using
> ProductCategoryRole.
> >> Multiple manufacturers could be handled that way
> - then just ignore
> >> the manufacturer field in Product.
> >>
> >> So, we could have a Product Category called "XYZ
> Manufacturing
> >> Products" then the products they manufacture
> could be linked to that
> >> category. The company itself can be linked to the
> category through the
> >> party ID in the role of manufacturer.
> >>
> >> Manufacturers and Suppliers are different
> parties, btw. A supplier
> >> could provide the same part from several
> manufacturers.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Chris Howe wrote:
> >>
> >>> Technically, I would think you should make them
> two
> >>> separate products and then relate the two
> products as
> >>> equivelents. But of course that depends on how
> >>> detailed the company wants to be. Aside from
> making
> >>> them two seperate products, you could treat the
> >>> manufacturers as seperate suppliers for the same
> >>> generic product.
> >>>
> >>> However, I can think of an example where the
> current
> >>> structure is limiting. When the manufacturer or
> >>> product line is acquired by another company.
> >>>
> >>> --- Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> There are many examples of standard products
> that
> >>>> can come from multiple manufacturers. If I have
> a hardware store and
> >>>> I sell
> >>>> 3/4 inch galvanized pipe tees, they could come
> from three or four
> >>>> different
> >>>> manufacturers. Should I have a separate 3/4
> inch galvanized tee
> >>>> product for each
> >>>> manufacturer? I hope not! I used the example of
> electronic
> >>>> components the last
> >>>> time this was discussed - the same holds true
> there.
> >>>>
> >>>> It IS a limitation. It will come up again, and
> when
> >>>> it does, I'll continue to make the same
> suggestion.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Chris Howe wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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 <ad...@hlmksw.com> 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.
> >>>>>>
>
=== message truncated ===
Re: Need for ProductRole
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.
We use manufacturer information in the components that go into our homes.
For instance, one "Product" would be a bathroom sink faucet. For simplicity, we
refer to it as a bathroom sink faucet - no mention of manufacturer. Depending
upon the year and the current style, the bathroom sink faucet may be
manufactured by different companies. This year it's Kohler, five years ago
it was Price-Pfister. Our suppliers know we will accept only the the brand we
use currently.
So, whenever we look up bathroom sink faucet we need to know which manufacturer
was used and when. If we're sticking to a single generic product, then that
means we need to link it to two manufacturers.
Historical information is crucial for warranty service issues. If a homeowner
calls about a failed bathroom sink faucet, we can find out the manufacturer
based upon the date the home was manufactured. (In real life the homeowner would
just run down to Home Depot for a replacement, but the process would apply for
other items.)
Is this an immediate need here? No. If the capability doesn't make it into the
project before I address it here, then I'll just make the mods and contribute
them back.
David E. Jones wrote:
>
> Yeah, ProductCategoryRole might be a good model for multiple
> manufacturers as well, but in a way it would be nice if it were more
> directly associated with a Product... so I can see that being a possible
> way to go as well. I guess it depends on how it would actually be used
> by the people and the automated processes... Is this something that
> anyone actually has a need and scenarios for right now?
>
> -David
>
>
> Adrian Crum wrote:
>
>> I'm looking over David's suggestion of using ProductCategoryRole.
>> Multiple manufacturers could be handled that way - then just ignore
>> the manufacturer field in Product.
>>
>> So, we could have a Product Category called "XYZ Manufacturing
>> Products" then the products they manufacture could be linked to that
>> category. The company itself can be linked to the category through the
>> party ID in the role of manufacturer.
>>
>> Manufacturers and Suppliers are different parties, btw. A supplier
>> could provide the same part from several manufacturers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>
>>> Technically, I would think you should make them two
>>> separate products and then relate the two products as
>>> equivelents. But of course that depends on how
>>> detailed the company wants to be. Aside from making
>>> them two seperate products, you could treat the
>>> manufacturers as seperate suppliers for the same
>>> generic product.
>>>
>>> However, I can think of an example where the current
>>> structure is limiting. When the manufacturer or
>>> product line is acquired by another company.
>>>
>>> --- Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> There are many examples of standard products that
>>>> can come from multiple manufacturers. If I have a hardware store and
>>>> I sell
>>>> 3/4 inch galvanized pipe tees, they could come from three or four
>>>> different
>>>> manufacturers. Should I have a separate 3/4 inch galvanized tee
>>>> product for each
>>>> manufacturer? I hope not! I used the example of electronic
>>>> components the last
>>>> time this was discussed - the same holds true there.
>>>>
>>>> It IS a limitation. It will come up again, and when
>>>> it does, I'll continue to make the same suggestion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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 <ad...@hlmksw.com> 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 <ad...@hlmksw.com> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
Re: Need for ProductRole
Posted by "David E. Jones" <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>.
Yeah, ProductCategoryRole might be a good model for multiple manufacturers as well, but in a way it would be nice if it were more directly associated with a Product... so I can see that being a possible way to go as well. I guess it depends on how it would actually be used by the people and the automated processes... Is this something that anyone actually has a need and scenarios for right now?
-David
Adrian Crum wrote:
> I'm looking over David's suggestion of using ProductCategoryRole.
> Multiple manufacturers could be handled that way - then just ignore the
> manufacturer field in Product.
>
> So, we could have a Product Category called "XYZ Manufacturing Products"
> then the products they manufacture could be linked to that category. The
> company itself can be linked to the category through the party ID in the
> role of manufacturer.
>
> Manufacturers and Suppliers are different parties, btw. A supplier could
> provide the same part from several manufacturers.
>
>
>
> Chris Howe wrote:
>
>> Technically, I would think you should make them two
>> separate products and then relate the two products as
>> equivelents. But of course that depends on how
>> detailed the company wants to be. Aside from making
>> them two seperate products, you could treat the
>> manufacturers as seperate suppliers for the same
>> generic product.
>>
>> However, I can think of an example where the current
>> structure is limiting. When the manufacturer or
>> product line is acquired by another company.
>>
>> --- Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There are many examples of standard products that
>>> can come from multiple manufacturers. If I have a hardware store and
>>> I sell
>>> 3/4 inch galvanized pipe tees, they could come from three or four
>>> different
>>> manufacturers. Should I have a separate 3/4 inch galvanized tee
>>> product for each
>>> manufacturer? I hope not! I used the example of electronic components
>>> the last
>>> time this was discussed - the same holds true there.
>>>
>>> It IS a limitation. It will come up again, and when
>>> it does, I'll continue to make the same suggestion.
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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 <ad...@hlmksw.com> 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 <ad...@hlmksw.com> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
Re: Need for ProductRole
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.
I'm looking over David's suggestion of using ProductCategoryRole. Multiple
manufacturers could be handled that way - then just ignore the manufacturer
field in Product.
So, we could have a Product Category called "XYZ Manufacturing Products" then
the products they manufacture could be linked to that category. The company
itself can be linked to the category through the party ID in the role of
manufacturer.
Manufacturers and Suppliers are different parties, btw. A supplier could provide
the same part from several manufacturers.
Chris Howe wrote:
> Technically, I would think you should make them two
> separate products and then relate the two products as
> equivelents. But of course that depends on how
> detailed the company wants to be. Aside from making
> them two seperate products, you could treat the
> manufacturers as seperate suppliers for the same
> generic product.
>
> However, I can think of an example where the current
> structure is limiting. When the manufacturer or
> product line is acquired by another company.
>
> --- Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com> wrote:
>
>
>>There are many examples of standard products that
>>can come from multiple
>>manufacturers. If I have a hardware store and I sell
>>3/4 inch galvanized pipe
>>tees, they could come from three or four different
>>manufacturers. Should I have
>>a separate 3/4 inch galvanized tee product for each
>>manufacturer? I hope not! I
>>used the example of electronic components the last
>>time this was discussed - the
>>same holds true there.
>>
>>It IS a limitation. It will come up again, and when
>>it does, I'll continue to
>>make the same suggestion.
>>
>>
>>Chris Howe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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 <ad...@hlmksw.com> 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 <ad...@hlmksw.com> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: Need for ProductRole
Posted by Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>.
Technically, I would think you should make them two
separate products and then relate the two products as
equivelents. But of course that depends on how
detailed the company wants to be. Aside from making
them two seperate products, you could treat the
manufacturers as seperate suppliers for the same
generic product.
However, I can think of an example where the current
structure is limiting. When the manufacturer or
product line is acquired by another company.
--- Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com> wrote:
> There are many examples of standard products that
> can come from multiple
> manufacturers. If I have a hardware store and I sell
> 3/4 inch galvanized pipe
> tees, they could come from three or four different
> manufacturers. Should I have
> a separate 3/4 inch galvanized tee product for each
> manufacturer? I hope not! I
> used the example of electronic components the last
> time this was discussed - the
> same holds true there.
>
> It IS a limitation. It will come up again, and when
> it does, I'll continue to
> make the same suggestion.
>
>
> Chris Howe wrote:
>
> > 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 <ad...@hlmksw.com> 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 <ad...@hlmksw.com> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>
Re: Need for ProductRole
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.
There are many examples of standard products that can come from multiple
manufacturers. If I have a hardware store and I sell 3/4 inch galvanized pipe
tees, they could come from three or four different manufacturers. Should I have
a separate 3/4 inch galvanized tee product for each manufacturer? I hope not! I
used the example of electronic components the last time this was discussed - the
same holds true there.
It IS a limitation. It will come up again, and when it does, I'll continue to
make the same suggestion.
Chris Howe wrote:
> 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 <ad...@hlmksw.com> 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 <ad...@hlmksw.com> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: Need for ProductRole
Posted by Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>.
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 <ad...@hlmksw.com> 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 <ad...@hlmksw.com> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Need for ProductRole
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.
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 <ad...@hlmksw.com> 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
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: Need for ProductRole
Posted by Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>.
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 <ad...@hlmksw.com> 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
> >
>
Re: Need for ProductRole
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.
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
>
Re: Need for ProductRole
Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
Each screen can have permissions. you can look it up in each widget.
it is best when viewing these pages to login as a Party that is only
Customer Role and see what is shown.
Admittedly, there needs to be a lot of work on the permissions/roles for
the new widgets.
Ian Gilbert sent the following on 7/12/2006 2:29 AM:
> Thanks Scott,
>
> Is this using the 'Parties' tab? This doesn't actually seem to do anything or am I missing
> something? There is also a 'Parties' tab on the catalog admin page. Would 'ProductServices.xml'
> require modification for this to work? To clarify the objective is to make only certain products
> (or categories of products or catalogs) available to certain users. I think that these should be
> invisible and not appear if they are not available to the user but any granular level (e.g. unless
> the customer was associated with the product then they couldn't purchase it although they may be
> able to buy it). I am looking to test this feature if it exists (and document it).
>
> Thanks and best wishes
>
> Ian
>
>
> On Tue, July 11, 2006 10:27, Scott Gray wrote:
>> Hi Ian
>>
>>
>> It looks like the role is set on the category admin page in the Catalog App.
>> i.e. https://localhost:8443/catalog/control/EditCategoryParties?productCategoryId=101
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> Ian Gilbert wrote:
>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>>
>>> I can't see how to set this I'm afraid. There doesn't seem to be a ProductCategoryRole tab in
>>> the party manager. Is this done in Webtools? How would this be done?
>>>
>>> I am curious as we had a requirement to do this a while ago but it was delayed and it might be
>>> a quick fix now.
>>>
>>> Very best wishes
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, July 10, 2006 17:54, David E. Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> This probably the best pattern to use, ie Party -> ProductCategoryRole ->
>>>> ProductCategoryMember
>>>> -> Product
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The reason I say this is that the pattern is already being used for role-limited permissions
>>>> in the Catalog Manager. For details see the product permission checking simple-method in
>>>> ProductServices.xml.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> There are Category roles. Adding a product to a
>>>>> category that someone has permissions over would be generally easier to manage. Remember
>>>>> that catalogs don't need to be associated with product stores to be useful using custom
>>>>> screens and categories don't need to be associated with catalogs.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- Al Byers <by...@automationgroups.com> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: Need for ProductRole
Posted by Scott Gray <le...@gmail.com>.
Hi Ian
Sorry afraid I can't help, all I knew was where the screen the others
were talking about lives.
Regards
Scott
Ian Gilbert wrote:
> Thanks Scott,
>
> Is this using the 'Parties' tab? This doesn't actually seem to do anything or am I missing
> something? There is also a 'Parties' tab on the catalog admin page. Would 'ProductServices.xml'
> require modification for this to work? To clarify the objective is to make only certain products
> (or categories of products or catalogs) available to certain users. I think that these should be
> invisible and not appear if they are not available to the user but any granular level (e.g. unless
> the customer was associated with the product then they couldn't purchase it although they may be
> able to buy it). I am looking to test this feature if it exists (and document it).
>
> Thanks and best wishes
>
> Ian
>
>
> On Tue, July 11, 2006 10:27, Scott Gray wrote:
>
>> Hi Ian
>>
>>
>> It looks like the role is set on the category admin page in the Catalog App.
>> i.e. https://localhost:8443/catalog/control/EditCategoryParties?productCategoryId=101
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> Ian Gilbert wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>>
>>> I can't see how to set this I'm afraid. There doesn't seem to be a ProductCategoryRole tab in
>>> the party manager. Is this done in Webtools? How would this be done?
>>>
>>> I am curious as we had a requirement to do this a while ago but it was delayed and it might be
>>> a quick fix now.
>>>
>>> Very best wishes
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, July 10, 2006 17:54, David E. Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> This probably the best pattern to use, ie Party -> ProductCategoryRole ->
>>>> ProductCategoryMember
>>>> -> Product
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The reason I say this is that the pattern is already being used for role-limited permissions
>>>> in the Catalog Manager. For details see the product permission checking simple-method in
>>>> ProductServices.xml.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> There are Category roles. Adding a product to a
>>>>> category that someone has permissions over would be generally easier to manage. Remember
>>>>> that catalogs don't need to be associated with product stores to be useful using custom
>>>>> screens and categories don't need to be associated with catalogs.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- Al Byers <by...@automationgroups.com> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Re: Need for ProductRole
Posted by Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>.
The "Parties" tab are used as partyId/role pairs. For
instance for the catalog / parties tab setting a
partyId in the roleType of "Customer" will give that
person access to that catalog in the chooseCatalog
screen in ecommerce and in the order entry (if they
have permission to the order entry backend).
There are very few of these roleTypes that use has
been defined, so it's mostly to your custom situation.
--- Ian Gilbert <ia...@ethicalshopper.co.uk>
wrote:
> Thanks Scott,
>
> Is this using the 'Parties' tab? This doesn't
> actually seem to do anything or am I missing
> something? There is also a 'Parties' tab on the
> catalog admin page. Would 'ProductServices.xml'
> require modification for this to work? To clarify
> the objective is to make only certain products
> (or categories of products or catalogs) available to
> certain users. I think that these should be
> invisible and not appear if they are not available
> to the user but any granular level (e.g. unless
> the customer was associated with the product then
> they couldn't purchase it although they may be
> able to buy it). I am looking to test this feature
> if it exists (and document it).
>
> Thanks and best wishes
>
> Ian
>
>
> On Tue, July 11, 2006 10:27, Scott Gray wrote:
> > Hi Ian
> >
> >
> > It looks like the role is set on the category
> admin page in the Catalog App.
> > i.e.
>
https://localhost:8443/catalog/control/EditCategoryParties?productCategoryId=101
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > Scott
> >
> >
> > Ian Gilbert wrote:
> >
> >> Hi David,
> >>
> >>
> >> I can't see how to set this I'm afraid. There
> doesn't seem to be a ProductCategoryRole tab in
> >> the party manager. Is this done in Webtools?
> How would this be done?
> >>
> >> I am curious as we had a requirement to do this a
> while ago but it was delayed and it might be
> >> a quick fix now.
> >>
> >> Very best wishes
> >>
> >>
> >> Ian
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, July 10, 2006 17:54, David E. Jones
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> This probably the best pattern to use, ie Party
> -> ProductCategoryRole ->
> >>> ProductCategoryMember
> >>> -> Product
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The reason I say this is that the pattern is
> already being used for role-limited permissions
> >>> in the Catalog Manager. For details see the
> product permission checking simple-method in
> >>> ProductServices.xml.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -David
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Chris Howe wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> There are Category roles. Adding a product to
> a
> >>>> category that someone has permissions over
> would be generally easier to manage. Remember
> >>>> that catalogs don't need to be associated with
> product stores to be useful using custom
> >>>> screens and categories don't need to be
> associated with catalogs.
> >>>>
> >>>> --- Al Byers <by...@automationgroups.com>
> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Ian Gilbert
> www.ethicalshopper.net
> Fair trade: the alternative choice for your everyday
> shopping
> 0845 456 2429
>
> WHAT DO YOU DRINK AT WORK?
> We can supply your organisation with high quality
> fair trade tea and
> coffee. Discounts are available for regular orders.
> Contact us for more
> details.
>
>
Re: Need for ProductRole
Posted by Ian Gilbert <ia...@ethicalshopper.co.uk>.
Thanks Scott,
Is this using the 'Parties' tab? This doesn't actually seem to do anything or am I missing
something? There is also a 'Parties' tab on the catalog admin page. Would 'ProductServices.xml'
require modification for this to work? To clarify the objective is to make only certain products
(or categories of products or catalogs) available to certain users. I think that these should be
invisible and not appear if they are not available to the user but any granular level (e.g. unless
the customer was associated with the product then they couldn't purchase it although they may be
able to buy it). I am looking to test this feature if it exists (and document it).
Thanks and best wishes
Ian
On Tue, July 11, 2006 10:27, Scott Gray wrote:
> Hi Ian
>
>
> It looks like the role is set on the category admin page in the Catalog App.
> i.e. https://localhost:8443/catalog/control/EditCategoryParties?productCategoryId=101
>
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
>
> Ian Gilbert wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>>
>> I can't see how to set this I'm afraid. There doesn't seem to be a ProductCategoryRole tab in
>> the party manager. Is this done in Webtools? How would this be done?
>>
>> I am curious as we had a requirement to do this a while ago but it was delayed and it might be
>> a quick fix now.
>>
>> Very best wishes
>>
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, July 10, 2006 17:54, David E. Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> This probably the best pattern to use, ie Party -> ProductCategoryRole ->
>>> ProductCategoryMember
>>> -> Product
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The reason I say this is that the pattern is already being used for role-limited permissions
>>> in the Catalog Manager. For details see the product permission checking simple-method in
>>> ProductServices.xml.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> There are Category roles. Adding a product to a
>>>> category that someone has permissions over would be generally easier to manage. Remember
>>>> that catalogs don't need to be associated with product stores to be useful using custom
>>>> screens and categories don't need to be associated with catalogs.
>>>>
>>>> --- Al Byers <by...@automationgroups.com> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Ian Gilbert
www.ethicalshopper.net
Fair trade: the alternative choice for your everyday shopping
0845 456 2429
WHAT DO YOU DRINK AT WORK?
We can supply your organisation with high quality fair trade tea and
coffee. Discounts are available for regular orders. Contact us for more
details.
Re: Need for ProductRole
Posted by Scott Gray <le...@gmail.com>.
Hi Ian
It looks like the role is set on the category admin page in the Catalog App.
i.e.
https://localhost:8443/catalog/control/EditCategoryParties?productCategoryId=101
Regards
Scott
Ian Gilbert wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> I can't see how to set this I'm afraid. There doesn't seem to be a ProductCategoryRole tab in the
> party manager. Is this done in Webtools? How would this be done?
>
> I am curious as we had a requirement to do this a while ago but it was delayed and it might be a
> quick fix now.
>
> Very best wishes
>
> Ian
>
>
> On Mon, July 10, 2006 17:54, David E. Jones wrote:
>
>
>
>> This probably the best pattern to use, ie Party -> ProductCategoryRole -> ProductCategoryMember
>> -> Product
>>
>>
>> The reason I say this is that the pattern is already being used for role-limited permissions in
>> the Catalog Manager. For details see the product permission checking simple-method in
>> ProductServices.xml.
>>
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There are Category roles. Adding a product to a
>>> category that someone has permissions over would be generally easier to manage. Remember that
>>> catalogs don't need to be associated with product stores to be useful using custom screens and
>>> categories don't need to be associated with catalogs.
>>>
>>> --- Al Byers <by...@automationgroups.com> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
Re: Need for ProductRole
Posted by Ian Gilbert <ia...@ethicalshopper.co.uk>.
Hi David,
I can't see how to set this I'm afraid. There doesn't seem to be a ProductCategoryRole tab in the
party manager. Is this done in Webtools? How would this be done?
I am curious as we had a requirement to do this a while ago but it was delayed and it might be a
quick fix now.
Very best wishes
Ian
On Mon, July 10, 2006 17:54, David E. Jones wrote:
>
> This probably the best pattern to use, ie Party -> ProductCategoryRole -> ProductCategoryMember
> -> Product
>
>
> The reason I say this is that the pattern is already being used for role-limited permissions in
> the Catalog Manager. For details see the product permission checking simple-method in
> ProductServices.xml.
>
>
> -David
>
>
>
> Chris Howe wrote:
>
>> There are Category roles. Adding a product to a
>> category that someone has permissions over would be generally easier to manage. Remember that
>> catalogs don't need to be associated with product stores to be useful using custom screens and
>> categories don't need to be associated with catalogs.
>>
>> --- Al Byers <by...@automationgroups.com> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
Ian Gilbert
www.ethicalshopper.net
Fair trade: the alternative choice for your everyday shopping
0845 456 2429
WHAT DO YOU DRINK AT WORK?
We can supply your organisation with high quality fair trade tea and
coffee. Discounts are available for regular orders. Contact us for more
details.
Re: Need for ProductRole
Posted by "David E. Jones" <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>.
This probably the best pattern to use, ie Party -> ProductCategoryRole -> ProductCategoryMember -> Product
The reason I say this is that the pattern is already being used for role-limited permissions in the Catalog Manager. For details see the product permission checking simple-method in ProductServices.xml.
-David
Chris Howe wrote:
> There are Category roles. Adding a product to a
> category that someone has permissions over would be
> generally easier to manage. Remember that catalogs
> don't need to be associated with product stores to be
> useful using custom screens and categories don't need
> to be associated with catalogs.
>
> --- Al Byers <by...@automationgroups.com> 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
>>
>
Re: Need for ProductRole
Posted by Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>.
There are Category roles. Adding a product to a
category that someone has permissions over would be
generally easier to manage. Remember that catalogs
don't need to be associated with product stores to be
useful using custom screens and categories don't need
to be associated with catalogs.
--- Al Byers <by...@automationgroups.com> 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
>