Hi Everyone, Thinking some more about the concerns from multiple people in this thread like Michael, Rajesh, Gil and others I have a different suggestion.
Why not make a sweeping review of the full domain model, and then decide on one comprehensive change, with even a migration script that we can offer to users. That would be easier than randomly changing a few entities every once in a while. The domain model seems sensitive to many users and I understand that because everything builds on top of it. I heard enough objections to recommend postponing this task and coming up with something better as suggested above. On Sat, Apr 14, 2018, 9:56 AM Michael Brohl <michael.br...@ecomify.de> wrote: > Suraj, > > I still do not see much value in this change, compared to the effort > needed for development and testing as well as the migration the users > have to do. > > Please consider to not do this change. > > Thanks, > > Michael > > > Am 13.04.18 um 10:09 schrieb Suraj Khurana: > > Thanks everyone for your thoughts. > > > > One more point is we also manage Data Migration By release document so it > > will help existing uses. Such as https://cwiki.apache.org/confl > > uence/display/OFBIZ/Data+Migration+by+releases > > < > https://www.google.com/url?q=https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Data%2BMigration%2Bby%2Breleases&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1523684384066000&usg=AFQjCNHrGuEkvs9NdHkf_MUX3tPFJfp2Wg > > > > Handling of deprecated entities is also properly defined at > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/General+Entity+Overview, > > we can easily follow these steps. > > > > We will change entity name and its occurrence everywhere in code base, > > provide a data migration service which will be helpful for existing uses. > > Further on, thanks to Arun's suggestion, there will not be any confusion > > related to entity name as well. > > > > @Nicolas, Arun also suggested two names to avoid confusion, may be anyone > > of them makes more sense to you. > > > > -- > > Thanks and Regards, > > *Suraj Khurana* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer > > HotWax Commerce by HotWax Systems > > Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010 > > Cell phone: +91 96697-50002 > > > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Nicolas Malin <nicolas.ma...@nereide.fr > > > > wrote: > > > >> Hi > >> > >> On 10/04/2018 13:24, Suraj Khurana wrote: > >> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage. > >>> > >>> - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't > >>> contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as > >>> *OrderShipGroup.* > >>> - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association > type, > >>> it > >>> just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this > could be > >>> re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code > >>> readablity. > >>> > >>> I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since > >>> inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self > >>> explanatory', > >>> this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on > >>> this topic. > >>> > >>> Please share your opinions on this. > >>> > >> It's big modification with potential side-effect. > >> I suggest to move carefully and migrate entities one by one and not all > in > >> one :) > >> > >> For the renaming OrderItemShipGroupto OrderShipGroupit's ok but I'm > >> against OrderItemShipGroupAssoc to OrderItemShipGroup. As pragmatic > >> OrderItemShipGroupAssoc isn't perfect like you spotted but it's easily > >> understandable. > >> > >> Nicolas > >> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> Thanks and Regards, > >>> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert > >>> *HotWax Commerce* by *HotWax Systems* > >>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010 > >>> Cell phone: +91 96697-50002 > >>> > >>> > > >
