FacilityContent

[Bilgin Ibryam-2]

Hi all,

I need to upload and assign documents to facilities. These includes maps
of the facility, documents related to the facility etc.
To achieve this, I'm planning to create FacilityContent and
FacilityContentType entities which will be similar to existing entities
used to assign content to other entities (PartyContent, OrderContent).
Also I will provide a screen in facility application where the user can
upload and see content related to the selected facility.

Are there any objections or ideas to incorporate into this proposal?

Bilgin

[Ean Schuessler]

Bilgin Ibryam wrote:

> I need to upload and assign documents to facilities. These includes
> maps of the facility, documents related to the facility etc.
> To achieve this, I'm planning to create FacilityContent and
> FacilityContentType entities which will be similar to existing
> entities used to assign content to other entities (PartyContent,
> OrderContent). Also I will provide a screen in facility application
> where the user can upload and see content related to the selected
> facility.
>
> Are there any objections or ideas to incorporate into this proposal?

Seems like a worthwhile addition. I've always been a little bit bothered

by the seeming redundancy of the xxxx_content_type fields but that is
the established pattern. I can see exactly why you want the feature. I'd
say go for it!

--
Ean Schuessler, CTO
[hidden email]
214-720-0700 x 315
Brainfood, Inc.
http://www.brainfood.com

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

+1

On Feb 9, 2010, at 2:59 PM, Bilgin Ibryam wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I need to upload and assign documents to facilities. These includes maps of the facility, documents related to the facility etc.
> To achieve this, I'm planning to create FacilityContent and FacilityContentType entities which will be similar to existing entities used to assign content to other entities (PartyContent, OrderContent). Also I will provide a screen in facility application where the user can upload and see content related to the selected facility.
>
> Are there any objections or ideas to incorporate into this proposal?
>
> Bilgin

[Adam Heath-2]

Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> +1
>
> On Feb 9, 2010, at 2:59 PM, Bilgin Ibryam wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I need to upload and assign documents to facilities. These includes maps of the facility, documents related to the facility etc.
>> To achieve this, I'm planning to create FacilityContent and FacilityContentType entities which will be similar to existing entities used to assign content to other entities (PartyContent, OrderContent). Also I will provide a screen in facility application where the user can upload and see content related to the selected facility.
>>
>> Are there any objections or ideas to incorporate into this proposal?

Actually, not exactly that.

FacilityContentType is just a ContentType, you don't need to create
the sub-table.

[Adam Heath-2]

Adam Heath wrote:

> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> On Feb 9, 2010, at 2:59 PM, Bilgin Ibryam wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I need to upload and assign documents to facilities. These includes maps of the facility, documents related to the facility etc.
>>> To achieve this, I'm planning to create FacilityContent and FacilityContentType entities which will be similar to existing entities used to assign content to other entities (PartyContent, OrderContent). Also I will provide a screen in facility application where the user can upload and see content related to the selected facility.
>>>
>>> Are there any objections or ideas to incorporate into this proposal?
>
> Actually, not exactly that.
>
> FacilityContentType is just a ContentType, you don't need to create
> the sub-table.

Actually, not even that.  This is a ContentPurpose.

[Ean Schuessler]

Adam Heath wrote:
> Actually, not exactly that.
>
> FacilityContentType is just a ContentType, you don't need to create
> the sub-table.
>  
I suppose to extend on my earlier message... I'm a little confused why
xxxx_content_type isn't called xxxx_content_purpose. The content already
has a "type" from the content_type table that is specified in the
content table. The association of the content with a given entity seems
more like it has a purpose, it doesn't change the base type of the
content. Right?

--
Ean Schuessler, CTO
[hidden email]
214-720-0700 x 315
Brainfood, Inc.
http://www.brainfood.com

[Bilgin Ibryam-2]

Ean Schuessler wrote:

> Bilgin Ibryam wrote:
>  
>> I need to upload and assign documents to facilities. These includes
>> maps of the facility, documents related to the facility etc.
>> To achieve this, I'm planning to create FacilityContent and
>> FacilityContentType entities which will be similar to existing
>> entities used to assign content to other entities (PartyContent,
>> OrderContent). Also I will provide a screen in facility application
>> where the user can upload and see content related to the selected
>> facility.
>>
>> Are there any objections or ideas to incorporate into this proposal?
>>    
> Seems like a worthwhile addition. I've always been a little bit bothered
> by the seeming redundancy of the xxxx_content_type fields but that is
> the established pattern. I can see exactly why you want the feature. I'd
> say go for it!
>
>  

Adam, Ean,

In data mode resource book content entities are not described and I
don't know what was the original idea behind xxxx_content_type entity.
I suppose it is not the type of the content but the type of the
relation. I decided to include it only to keep the consistency with the
previous entities. I also don't need it and ContentPurpose seems to be
enough.
I also see the last addition - CustRequestContent didn't follow this
pattern - there is not CustRequestContentType. I will add only
FacilityContent entity.

Thanks for sharing your ideas.
Bilgin

[Bilgin Ibryam-2]

Committed to trunk in r908602

Bilgin