+1 Taher
> On 14-Apr-2018, at 12:40 PM, Taher Alkhateeb <slidingfilame...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
