[ic] Shipping Survey

[William Carr]

On Oct 16, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Andrew Baerg <andrew.baerg at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:43 PM, William Carr <bill at bottlenose-wine.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm glad this came up. I was just working on this today.
> 
> What to we do when different carriers offer different services that will not fit into our predefined, generic services?
> 
> I think in the example above we will have to assume each carrier offers essentially the same services which may not be the case.
> 
> The idea here is not that each carrier offers the same service, but that the module would map the concept of a ground and express service to one of the carrier's modes to create sane defaults.
> 
> $shipment->all_services is used to expose all of the service options for a given carrier, from/to address, etc.
>  
> 
> In interchange we usually do something like:
> 
> UserTag ship_cost
> blah, blah, bah
> 
> shipping.asc:
> f [ship_cost mode=GROUND_HOME_DELIVERY]
> 
> Today I messed around with an approach like so:
> shipping.asc:
> f [ship_cost carrier=FexEx service=ground]
> 
> In my first example we have to assume each carrier's service (or mode) has a unique name of pass in a carrier parameter.
> 
> I would recommend against doing this since you cannot guarantee uniqueness across carriers. Carrier + Service should always be used.
>  
> 
> In the later example we'd have to limit the generic services to the once provided by all the carriers used.
> 
>  
> As stated above., I would envision that all carriers would have the generic services mapped to something by default.
Cool. I see where you're going with this. It works for me.

 
Bill Carr, President at Bottlenose
(413) 584-0400 
http://www.bottlenose-wine.com 
 Download vCard

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.icdevgroup.org/pipermail/interchange-users/attachments/20131016/d40613c8/attachment.html>