It was an idea and maybe the development required outweighs the value to the project. Adding a deprecated flag may be useful but you have that with the existing process (prepend Old to entity name)
For such a small change, this can have a major impact for existing installations Gareth Carter Software Development Analyst Stannah Management Services Ltd IT Department Ext: 7036 DDI: 01264 364311 [http://logos.stannah.co.uk/stan150.jpg] [http://logos.stannah.co.uk/enviro.jpg]Please consider the environment before printing this email. From: Rajesh Mallah [mailto:mallah.raj...@gmail.com] Sent: 17 April 2018 3:29 PM To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Subject: Re: Confusing entity names I feel this approach ( deprecated=”true” ) gives breathing space for stakeholders to absorb changes at their own pace. And its not unique here , most reputable softwares takes this path of warning deprecated usages. Also it is not going to be first or last sweeping change (if at all we take that approach) I feel we must take backward compatibility seriously in our approaches as ERP systems are usually of CRITICAL nature and losses due to non-availability tends to multiply downstream. regds mallah. On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com<mailto:jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>> wrote: > That's interesting, I had no idea about > deprecated=”true” entity-ref=”OrderShipGroup” > > So this would need some changes in the Entity Engine, but at 1st glance it > seems doable. > > Would you mind provide a patch for review, if others agree about the idea? > > Jacques > > > Le 17/04/2018 à 13:22, Gareth Carter a écrit : > >> Ah right, as soon as I replied I remembered you could change the physical >> table an entity points too so there is that work around. >> >> My suggestion is slightly different to the deprecating method noted at >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/General+<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/General+> >> Entity+Overview#GeneralEntityOverview-DeprecatedEntities >> >> Rather than rename to Old* and create a migration service. My idea was >> that the old and new entities point to the same physical table and could >> flag an entity as deprecated >> >> For OrderItemShipGroup example >> >> <entity entity-name=”OrderItemShipGroup” deprecated=”true” >> entity-ref=”OrderShipGroup”> >> … no fields but use all fields defined in OrderShipGroup >> </entity> >> >> <entity entity-name=”OrderShipGroup” ….> >> ...fields defined here >> </entity> >> >> OrderItemShipGroup references OrderShipGroup so the entity structure is >> the same (ie fields are the same) and both point to the same physical table. >> >> You can then highlight deprecated entities in webtools or log a warning >> whenever deprecated entities are used. This will alleviate the risk for >> custom components/plugins upgrading to a newer release and give developers >> time to make the changes >> >> Just a thought, I know for a fact that if OrderItemShipGroup and others >> are renamed, we would have a lot of refactoring to do >> >> >> Gareth Carter >> >> >> Software Development Analyst >> >> >> Stannah Management Services Ltd >> >> >> IT Department >> >> >> Ext: >> >> >> 7036 >> >> >> DDI: >> >> >> 01264 364311 >> >> >> >> >> [http://logos.stannah.co.uk/stan150.jpg<http://logos.stannah.co.uk/stan150.jpg>] >> >> >> [http://logos.stannah.co.uk/enviro.jpg<http://logos.stannah.co.uk/enviro.jpg>]Please >> consider the environment >> before printing this email. >> >> From: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com] >> Sent: 17 April 2018 11:21 AM >> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org<mailto:dev@ofbiz.apache.org> >> Subject: Re: Confusing entity names >> >> Hi Gareth, >> >> Yes, this is how it's supposed to be handled in OFBiz from start, see my >> answer to Mathieu Lirzin in this thread: >> https://markmail.org/message/wypy4tuhyyv5bugw<https://markmail.org/message/wypy4tuhyyv5bugw><https://markma >> il.org/message/wypy4tuhyyv5bugw<http://il.org/message/wypy4tuhyyv5bugw>> >> >> Jacques >> >> >> Le 17/04/2018 à 12:04, Gareth Carter a écrit : >> >>> Hi all >>> >>> This would certainly cause havoc for us! So I would propose not to >>> change them! >>> >>> I certainly do agree the names do not make sense so rather than rename, >>> could a new type of entity be created that can reference existing entities? >>> So both old and new entities would work on the same physical table? >>> Gareth Carter >>> Software Development Analyst >>> Stannah Management Services Ltd >>> IT Department >>> Ext: >>> 7036 >>> DDI: >>> 01264 364311 >>> >>> >>> Please consider the environment before printing this email. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Rajesh Mallah [mailto:mallah.raj...@gmail.com] >>> Sent: 12 April 2018 2:47 PM >>> To: >>> dev@ofbiz.apache.org<mailto:dev@ofbiz.apache.org<mailto:dev@ofbiz.apache.org%3cmailto:dev@ofbiz.apache.org>> >>> Subject: Re: Confusing entity names >>> >>> -1 >>> >>> is it really worth taking the risk , renaming generally wrecks havoc! >>> specially considering OFBiz which have 100's of entities and dozens >>> named similarly. >>> >>> however i agree with the proposer that they are not named properly. >>> >>> secondly , Is the current state of test suites or integration checks >>> touch scenarios that use the entities in question. >>> >>> presence of test suites gives more confidence for undertaking such >>> changes. >>> >>> May be once we have these it shall be a better time to fix things that >>> aint' broken. >>> >>> regds >>> mallah. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Michael Brohl <michael.br...@ecomify.de <mailto:michael.br...@ecomify.de%0b>>>> <mailto:michael.br...@ecomify.de>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Suraj, >>>> >>>> thanks for your proposal. >>>> >>>> Looking at it in isolation, it seems a good idea to just rename these >>>> entities. >>>> >>>> Having the users in mind, I'm not sure if this is worth the need for >>>> data migrations they have to do if they want to stay up-to-date. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure where the original names came from. When I'm in the >>>> office tomorrow, I'll consult the Data Model Resource Book. I'll be >>>> back then. >>>> >>>> Thanks and regards, >>>> >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> >>>> Am 10.04.18 um 13:24 schrieb Suraj Khurana: >>>> >>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This email is intended only for the above addressee. It may contain >>> privileged information. If you are not the addressee you must not copy, >>> distribute, disclose or use any of the information in it. If you have >>> received it in error, please delete it and notify the sender. >>> >>> Stannah Lift Holdings Ltd registered No. 686996, Stannah Management >>> Services Ltd registered No. 2483693, Stannah Lift Services Ltd registered >>> No. 1189799, Stannah Microlifts Ltd registered No. 964804, Stannah Lifts >>> Ltd registered No. 1189836, Stannah Stairlifts Ltd registered No. 1401451, >>> Global Upholstery Solutions Ltd registered No. 02452728. >>> >>> All registered offices at Watt Close, East Portway, Andover, Hampshire, >>> SP10 3SD, England. >>> >>> All Registered in England and Wales. >>> >> >
![http://logos.stannah.co.uk/enviro.jpg]Please](http://logos.stannah.co.uk/enviro.jpg]Please){kind=link}
