Hi all, I like the all or nothing (yet) proposal (thanks Taher btw :) ), since it offers a way to communicate around this big change and a way to migrate existing implementation. It's an optimum choice for this kind of refactoring, but it will need more effort to deliver it.
So now we'll need to gather opinions to know if there is people willing to contribute to such a task. Gil Le dimanche 15 avril 2018 à 09:48:56 (+0200), Jacques Le Roux a écrit : > I wonder, should it be really all or nothing? Will it not add more concerns > and difficulties to deliver a such big package? Should we wait for that to > happen, and how long? > > Jacques > > > Le 15/04/2018 à 02:55, innate Genius a écrit : > > +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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
