| Service | Hold information about the service |
| […]_id | primary key of the service |
| […]_label | label of the service |
| ServicePropery | Hold the additionnal field added to an entity by a service |
| […]_service_id | service key |
| […]_key | property key |
| […]_default | default value of property(needed?) |
| […]_type | type of field added to the entity by this property |
| […]_min | min number of values for this property by entity, NULL == 0 |
| […]_max | max number of values for this property by entity, NULL == infiny |
| ServicePropertyXXX | Specialization of ServiceProperty. Property listed here can be linked to an XXX |
| […]_id | = serviceproperty_id |
| XXXServicePropertyValue | Value of a property for an XXX |
| […]_sericeproperty_id | key of the property |
| […]_XXX_id | key of the XXX |
| […]_value | value of the property |
| XXXService | Specialization of Service. Service listed here can be linked to an XXX |
| […]_service_id | key of the service |
| […]_XXX_id | key of XXX |
The same model should be added for P_ tables
Mehdi : Ok
Anthony : -
Pierre : what about putting serviceproperty specialization in serviceproperty directly ? ⇒ ex: 2 serviceproperty quota (one for user, one for mailshare). apart that mailshare is not handled by this.. might be too formal and resolving only a small part of the problem ? module code have to know the properties…
Thomas : works for me, service_key only (rm key label) (mehdi : Done)
