On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:09 PM, David E Jones wrote:
-1.In fact, a big huge -1. I don't think those names make it easier to understand but rather more difficult, and then they are also not grouped so well in the entity data maintenance and other webtools pages, etc.
Are we so concerned about grouping such entities in entity data maintenance etc., I think yes, but question is should it be the criteria to name any entity for example like PortalPortlet, I think no. Well this name is not misleading when it comes to looking at the structure of this entity and reading the description but certainly it is because it is just about portlet information and not a portal.
If this was a case where the names were misleading or plain wrong then we might consider it. However, changing entities names causes lots of problems, and results in a database change that is not backwards-compatible, which also means people upgrading OFBiz will have to shut down their entire system in order to update past such a revision.
This make sense and I do agree now with this effort completely but disagree with the one above.
So no, I don't think this even comes close to being enough of an improvement to be worth it.-David On Apr 23, 2009, at 4:28 AM, Vikas Mayur wrote:Hi,I would like to propose change in name of the following entities in Portal. This would also result in changing the name of few keys.PortalPortlet --> Portlet (since this is just about a portlet)PortletPortletCategory --> PortletCategoryMember (as in ProductCategoryMember)IMO, they are more logical and clear names. I will open a jira issues if no body see any objections.Vikas
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
