Very good point! I totally forgot about that (even though I worked-on/
used it just a few weeks ago).
-David
On Oct 3, 2008, at 12:22 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Thanks for looking into that David.
After posting that message, I looked into the existing schema and
realized that time transparency might not belong in the WorkEffort
entity - it should be in the relation entities instead.
There is already some work done in that respect - the
WorkEffortPartyAssignment.availabilityStatusId field. I'll follow
that pattern and add the availabilityStatusId field to the
WorkEffortFixedAssetAssign entity. That means the StatusType entity
would be used to specify transparency, not Enumeration.
-Adrian
David E Jones wrote:
I just searched the trunk and I don't see it used anywhere, just
some labels and a map processor (a REALLY old one!).
For an enumerated value it might be nice to use the Enumeration
entity, and then instead of "timeTransparency" the field name
should be "timeTransparencyEnumId", and we can probably just get
rid of the old field (unless someone objects; it's REALLY old and
has probably never been used).
-David
On Oct 3, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
I'll probably leave it out for now. It can be added if someone can
find a need for it.
I'm not sure where to go from here. Do I just convert the field to
an id data type, or do I deprecate it and create a new field?
-Adrian
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Adding Undefined sounds wise to me (but seems not std ?)
Jacques
From: "Adrian Crum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <dev@ofbiz.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: WorkEffort.TimeTransparency
Well, even though we would store the transparency that way, it
doesn't mean we have to present it to the user that way. In
other words,
UI "Available" = TimeTransparency "TRANSPARENT"
UI "Unavailable" = TimeTransparency "OPAQUE"
I saw somewhere on the 'net where someone added a third choice -
UNDEFINED.
-Adrian
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
To be clear (from French definition in Wikipedia iCalendar)
Transparency : determines whether the resource affected at an
event is made unavailable (OPAQUE, TRANSPARENT)
From my POV, it's strange words used for availability !
Jacques
From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I know in scheduling it is if the time is free or committed.
like a task may not take any time but does have a place in
the events of doing something. Maybe a tickler to check
something.
Yes it'is from Transparent/Opaque in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar
(actually more in http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar#Ev.C3.A9nements_.28VEVENT.29)
I don't know any use in OFBiz and did not find anyting related
too.
So, yes enumeration seems better than numeric. Maybe a
misinterpreatation related to windows's opacity in UI (often 0
to 10 is used) ?
Jacques
Adrian Crum wrote:
The TimeTransparency field in the WorkEffort entity appears
to be unused.
I believe the field was inspired by the iCalendar
specification, but I don't understand why it was given a
numeric data type. It seems to me this should be an
enumeration: Transparent or Opaque.
Does anyone have any insight into if/how the
TimeTransparency field is used in OFBiz?
-Adrian
