Hi Gil, All, My apologies, but I have to object to this and for the following reasoning: Objections to pursuing improvements to the entity definition (for PartyRole) and subsequent addressing front-end issues (screens/forms, requests, services etc) for that and other entities impacted were raised, before https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/EntityNameRole was brought forward now 4 days ago.
That page defines the requirements for any and all EntityNameRole entity, including PartyRole. And the validity of what was stated there has not been contested up to now. Not even by those objecting to changes to PartyRole (as it is included in the page) before the date/time of the page, and who have remained silent since the availability of the page. I wanted to wait a bit longer, so that every contributor (and other readers of the dev ml) could have an informed opinion, before suggesting to claim consensus on that. But alas... So it stands to reason that getting current existing and failing EntityNameRole entities (including the PartyRole entity) compliant is implied and thus warranted. And thus tickets can stay as they are. Just the order of improvements coming in is a concern that needs to be addressed when they come in. And if such concerns can be addressed and eliminated beforehand, so much the better. Furthermore, one key aspect I would like to mention here. You mentioned in your comment (see [1]): 'The current applications IMO are not meant to be used as is'. This is a very wrong point of view, as the many users/contributors in user ml see differently. Otherwise they would not raise a thread about the workings of OFBiz, about functionalities not being good enough. Or a ticket in JIRA. They expect OFBiz as a business solutions to be usable as is, as a minimal viable product (MVP). They don't expect it to be perfect when they start using it. They'll trust that it will come along in due time. And they also don't expect it to have all the bells and whistles a particular developer thinks necessary (while adding no value to the user). But, any improvement brought forward to benefit all can/should go in. That is what they expect. And integrators downstream can take that and enhance for their own audience (current and future) as they see fit. It is not up to the integrators (as you proclaimed in the same posting: 'It is our choices as Integrators to decide') to decide what goes into OFBiz that works for all users, not just their own clients. System integrators don't contribute to an project to the ASF. Even if they would be able to do so, at the end the using company decides). We need to work on that perception of contributors with privileges, as it seems that this mindset (Integrators decide) is dictates the direction of this project. [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/n9z54kljr1tmjo340bpontlvttcsttxk Met vriendelijke groet, Pierre Smits *Proud* *contributor** of* Apache OFBiz <https://ofbiz.apache.org/> since 2008 (without privileges). 13 years already. What does time fly (when happy contributing towards improving OFBiz for all users) Proud contributor to the ASF since 2006 *Apache Directory <https://directory.apache.org>, PMC Member* On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 5:03 PM Gil Portenseigne < gil.portensei...@nereide.fr> wrote: > Hello, > > I will try to summarize the ongoing thread, to produce a conclusion or > potential plan. Sorry in advance, if I forgot some points. > > About the improvement of adding lifespan in PartyRole entity, the "Won't > do" > seems to get the consensus, since this improvement do not follow logical > purpose (might for audit), and will introduce regressions and bugs risks if > implemented. > > The discussion went to a new subjects, like using PartyRelationship for > party > selection screens. > Opinion about removing PartyRole FK from EntityRole entities has been > expressed. > Those both topics can be lead into separate thread if needed, to let anyone > envision it without being polluted by the previous discussion in the > thread. > > If no one object I will close Jira about PartyRole lifespan. > > Thanks for your sharing, and Regards. > > Gil > > > >
