Thanks everyone for all your inputs. Seems that there is no common conclusion derived for this change.
I will hold/discard the ticket created for this soon. -- 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 On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Rishi Solanki <rishisolan...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 Scott. > I'm also not in favor of changing the names. Suraj suggested better names > but existing are also fine. Another point is OrderItemShipGrpInvRes have > relation with both the mentioned entities. Which tells by modeling that, > one OISG may have more than one OISGIR which may in turn have different > shipgroups. That means, one OISG having one order may be connected with > with single OISGIR or more than one OISGIR. And here item word makes sense > in the entity names. > > > > Rishi Solanki > Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development > HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd. > Direct: +91-9893287847 > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com > www.hotwax.co > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 1:20 PM, Scott Gray <scott.g...@hotwaxsystems.com> > wrote: > > > Just to throw in my 2 cents, I don't think the naming is so confusing > that > > it warrants changing. The number of replies in this thread highlights > that > > it isn't a straightforward thing to change, and personally I don't think > > the names are so bad that it's worth any of the pain that might come from > > changing them. > > > > IMO "OrderShipGroup" could just as easily imply a group of orders that > > should be shipped together as though they were a single order. So to me, > > "OrderItemShipGroup" does make some sense for the parent entity. > > > > The child entity is a bit trickier, because "OrderItemShipGroupOrderItem" > > is terrible so I guess that's why "Assoc" was chosen as the suffix. > > "OrderItemShipGroupItem" could work but it's not much better than > "Assoc". > > > > Sometime's names aren't perfect, but they're usually close enough that it > > doesn't matter very much. > > > > Regards > > Scott > > > > > > On 10 April 2018 at 23:24, Suraj Khurana <suraj.khurana@hotwaxsystems. > com> > > 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. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 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 > > > > > >
