ofbiz-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adrian Crum <adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com>
Subject Re: discussion: b2b versus b2c
Date Mon, 05 Mar 2012 09:25:01 GMT
If you want to discuss designs, then list the parties and their roles 
and we can all agree on how those parties are related to orders and 
other documents.

Or you can ignore everyone's advice and do as you please.

Also, this discussion should be on the dev list if anything is going to 
be committed to the project.

-Adrian

On 3/5/2012 9:21 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> Adrian, since we already have the person/company relationship in the 
> party general list I would rather use that relationship. Internal 
> organization could be confused with the company internal organization 
> of the company running the system and with accounting.
>
> For nicolas, sure, any addition will have this disadvantage. should be 
> not not add any functionality any more? this is the second time we get 
> this request, should we implement it over and over?
>
> Currently i am thinking adding a general.properties system variable to 
> indicate the major purpose of the system: b2c (as currently) and b2b 
> to be implemented.
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
> On 03/05/2012 03:40 PM, Nicolas Malin wrote:
>> Hi Hans,
>>
>> The most of the works on addons concerns the B2B with order, crm, 
>> quote, service, stock. I don't think it's a good solution to import 
>> in OFBiz all functionalities B2B and B2C with parameters selection. 
>> This may make them difficult to maintain business services.
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>> Le 05/03/2012 09:33, Adrian Crum a écrit :
>>> No, I am not implying that. Like you said, the current system does 
>>> not work that way.
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>> On 3/5/2012 8:30 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>> You are implying that the system at the moment works that way?
>>>>
>>>> if they go to ecommerce the entered order is assigned to the 
>>>> related internal organization? Same for quote and request? they can 
>>>> see all orders for that internal organization?
>>>>
>>>> On 03/05/2012 03:25 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>> Actually, it is quite simple, and I have discussed this many 
>>>>> times. The user is assigned to an internal organization (using the 
>>>>> UserPreference entity). When a user creates an order, they are 
>>>>> assigned to the order in the role of ORDER TAKER and their 
>>>>> internal organization is assigned to the order in the role of 
>>>>> INTERNAL ORGANIZATION. Finding orders by user or by internal 
>>>>> organization is easy.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/5/2012 8:20 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>> Adrian it is much more than that, when he enters an order in 
>>>>>> ecommerce the order should be for his company and not for him 
>>>>>> personally, he should be able to see the data/oders of his 
>>>>>> company (also entered by others) and there are many other 
>>>>>> cases......
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/05/2012 03:16 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>> There is no need to make it mandatory, just supply a default
if 
>>>>>>> one isn't explicitly assigned (the "Company" internal 
>>>>>>> organization for example).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/5/2012 8:13 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>> At the moment the system is focused being a b2c (business
to 
>>>>>>>> consumer) system. We are now getting more and more requests
for 
>>>>>>>> systems mainly for b2b (business to business)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The main difference is that in the b2c case the order/invoice

>>>>>>>> is for the person and in a b2b the order/invoice is for the

>>>>>>>> related company of that person.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the registration process a person can register referring
to 
>>>>>>>> a company, a second person can register to the same company

>>>>>>>> however somewhere needs to be a approval process.....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was thinking introducing a system parameter to make the

>>>>>>>> related company of a person mandatory or not....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> any thoughts on this?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message