[OGo-Users] Re: [OGo-Developer] Changes to trunk, Testing

[Adam Tauno Williams]

--=-jsvJqALU74+jUTGeEfPO
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> > ah, there it is, thanks for your patience. but this still does not =20
> > help, for the situation described in the other mail:
> > assume two projectors available, projector one is booked in the =20
> > morning, projector two is booked in the evening, then the third =20
> > person comes, and wants a projector, for a whole day meeting the =20
> > same day, then the proposal will not find a free time slot (Got no =20
> > free time interval).
> Thats correct, though the fact is visualized in the resourcemanager. =20
> (he will see when each of the projectors is booked and can coordinate =20
> that with the guys).
> Not sure how much that is a real world problem. Eg usually the =20
> resource will not be 100% equal but have an associated 'quality' (eg =20
> big room, small room), hence will require offline interaction who =20
> takes what.

Agree, the current categorization I think is a good method.  I think
there are lots of real world issues with treating items generically.  In
the example of a projector, etc... I need to know who had which one
exactly so I can deal with one being returned broken.

> > So it is not working as I wanted it to work, but when there would be =20
> > an "amount" field in the database for a given resource, then this =20
> > could be made to work.
> I think it would be more useful to persist the fact that the user =20
> selected a 'group' (hence doesn't care which projector he gets).
> (As mentioned I don't like the non-identity idea in any case)

Agree

> > well, I also used the categories in an a bit different way, than you =20
> > might have intended. E.g. I have a category "Camping", whereas I =20
> > have a fishing rod, a tent, and other stuff in it. So completely =20
> > different usage of the resource Categories than you are expecting =20
> > that it is used.
> OK, so you used it for grouping arbitary stuff (as a group, not as a =20
> category). Thats not what its intended for.

This is what an ERP system would probably call a "kit".  It isn't a
category at all.

> > Personally, I like my broad categorizing ;) but would like to have =20
> > groups of resources within these categories

Define a resource that is a "fishing kit". :)

> Yes, groups of resources are also a nice idea. We might want to add =20
> that (including the implied semantics, which is 'schedule all =20
> contained objects').
> > where the amount column in the database would help me.
> Its very unlikely that I will add an amount.

Yes, and amount seems almost more inventory management (relieve /
replenish) that it does groupware.  I think it would also be really hard
to quickly detect a depleted state [raise conflict?] amongst many
overlapping appointments of varying durations [given appointments w, x,
y, & z is there any increment of time where the resource allocated
exceeds resource available].

--=-jsvJqALU74+jUTGeEfPO
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBHrKyxLRePpNle04MRAhm3AJ99MjODaqRbXAPpsFXGuiHjQlvIlACfc1oC
dH+Wj1aldW75dI44+nUjT2U=
=gDMX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-jsvJqALU74+jUTGeEfPO--