Hmmm maybe a solution that enforces naming conventions is something like the following - if hasTable is defined, the entity engine automatically creates the table using the convention of id - if someone wants to intentionally change the table name, they can set an override field like tableName.
Whatever the convention is, if we can automate it through the entity engine I think it would enforce the extensibility pattern in a systematic way to avoid (probably unintentional) anomalies like the one you mentioned. So maybe in addition to the new field, we can perhaps add an enforcement mechanism? If this sounds like an overkill then ignore what I said. On Sep 1, 2017 2:19 PM, "Arun Patidar" <arun.pati...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > Hello All, > > 'hasTable' field of 'Type' entities is used to give an idea that detail > entity exists or not. We generally get the name of detail entity on the > basis of typeId field value. > > For example : > > ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "POSTAL_ADDRESS" then we go to > PostalAddress for detail. > > similarly, > ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "TELECOM_NUMBER" then we go to > TelecomNumber for detail. > > is it a best practice to identify the name of detail entity on the basis of > typeId value? > > If yes, then there are some entities that are not following the pattern. > Some of them are: > - ShipmentGatewayConfigType > - PaymentGatewayConfigType > > if not, then we can add a field in Type entities to mention the name of > detail entity. > > > Please let me know your thoughts. > > > -- > Thanks & Regards > --- > Arun Patidar > Manager, Enterprise Software Development > > HotWax Systems Pvt Ltd. > > www.hotwaxsystems.com >
