Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] addressbook model and integration with accounts

[Brian Johnson]

Michael Dean (address@hidden) wrote:
>
>On Sat, 2003-06-28 at 00:43, Dave Hall wrote:
>> Brian Johnson <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> > I see we've thrown both the dcl schema and the addbook schema out
>> > the window
>> >
>>
>> Well kinda, i started thinking about the model a lot.  I saw bits i like
>> from several sources, including phpgw contacts, dcl, addbook, irc
>> discussions, and my own thoughts.  This model is designed to be a group
>> contacts system, which includes and addressbook, some crm functions, the
>> ability to incorporate better communication from within phpgw.
>
>You also ditched the organization info tables.
>

I'm sure the concept is to use the same info (ie adresses, phone numbers, etc)
tables for both orgs and people.


>> > if we're looking at a phpgw only schema, then should we omit the
>> > notes tables and
>> > just have links to infolog records?
>>
>> Yes, I never liked the notes table, but it was kept cos there was some
>> support for it, I am happy to see it go.  Maybe keeping a single TEXT
>> field would allow basic notes to be attached to a record, for those who
>> do not use infolog.
>
>Why should someone have to install infolog to keep notes on a contact or
>organization?  As far as the alternative, one field is not enough.  It
>needs to be a 1-n.
>

I guess the argument is that you don't have to install infolog, it is already
installed for you.

I know that the modular approach is the holy grail here, but some better 
integration
between some of the core apps is badly needed.  If that integration leads to 
some
apps being dependant on others, I'm all for it as long as the dependant app is 
one
of the core apps.

For instance, I think many of the devs want to link to addressbook records, that
will lead to the requirement that addressbook be installed in order to use 
their app

--
Brian Johnson
* This is where my witty signature line would be if I bothered to edit this 
line :) *