we actually have two levels. you have the entity level, similar to the Triggered procedures used in Databases where any action of the data is evaluated, even at creation time. the Difference is that most validation is Done the thing is Validation can be done at the Entity engine level, So most EECA are used after the creation of the data.
The other level is business flow. the decision to use SOA and/or ECA is a Design call and will very with the Designer background. I have brokend it down that porcesses that over many business flows will not change are SOA. what was one defined as hooks in C code would the the ECA Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 11/4/2011 2:59 PM: > I think that if we want to discuss this seriously we need to have 1st a > clear and complete workflow of ECA use in OFBiz. > > IMO, the Event Driven Architecture (EDA) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event-driven_architecture, is well adapted > to complete SOA > (Service Oriented Architecture). But one Criticism of Event Driven > Programming > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event-driven_programming#Criticism_and_best_practice) > apply: it can lead programmers to create > difficult to extend and, especially, excessively complex application > code. So it's rather a matter of use and abuse. > > In other words, I'd be ok to remove abuse but not use. In some cases > it's very convenient... > > Jacques > > J. Eckard wrote: >> I spend a great deal of time reading through existing OFBiz codebases >> to get a handle on process implementations, an experience >> that feels much more tedious and frustrating than it should. >> >> One of the things that contributes to the difficulty is the practice >> of using EECAs and / or SECAs to orchestrate a basic process >> with smaller, specialized services. >> >> I was hesitant to bring this up because I don't have any concrete >> suggestions or guidelines for improvements - its more of a >> nagging feeling I get when I see ECAs that are not very generic or >> used outside of the orchestration, or ECAs that perform >> crucial tasks that you would never want to disable or remove. >> >> Joe >> >> On Nov 3, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> >>> Actually, what I recommended was a discussion on using/removing ECAs >>> in general - not this specific case. >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >>> On 11/3/2011 5:15 PM, ki...@objectedge.com wrote: >>>> Hello Friends, >>>> >>>> In case of createShipment, during commit, eca rules are fired. These >>>> invoke updateShipment(i.e: even before commit on createShipment is >>>> complete). Update Shipment is called multiple times (You can view >>>> the log >>>> during quickShipOrder/quickDropShipOrder). Also, these rules are >>>> fired in >>>> incorrect order. These rules are updating the same shipment that is >>>> being >>>> committed by the original method. I believe this is incorrect. >>>> >>>> I have verified the functionality of quickShipOrder/quickDropShipOrder >>>> after the changes. Let me know if there are any testcases that I >>>> need to >>>> run. Please take a look at email thread for more details. Let me >>>> know if >>>> you have questions and concerns. If we integrate the change sooner, >>>> we can >>>> avoid merge conflicts. >>>> >>>> PS: Thanks Adrian and Anil for your vote of confidence. As per your >>>> recommendation, I am posting this to dev mailing list. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Kiran Gawde >>>> >>>> Senior Software Architect >>>> Object Edge Inc >>>> (925) 943 5558 x108 >>>> >>>> "There are two kind of people: Those who do the work and those who take >>>> the credit. Try to be in the first group because there is less >>>> competition >>>> there." >>>> "Never give up on what you really want to do. The person with big >>>> dreams >>>> is more powerful than one with all the facts". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: "Adrian Crum (Commented) (JIRA)"<j...@apache.org> >>>> To: ki...@objectedge.com >>>> Date: 11/03/2011 02:04 AM >>>> Subject: [jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-4501) Incorrect use of eca >>>> for >>>> create/updateShipment >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [ >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4501?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13142972#comment-13142972 >>>> >>>> ] >>>> >>>> Adrian Crum commented on OFBIZ-4501: >>>> ------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Kiran, >>>> >>>> Thank you for working on this. I agree that the overuse of ECAs causes >>>> problems and makes the services difficult to troubleshoot. But removing >>>> them is going to be a tough sell because many in the community see >>>> it as a >>>> feature - they see it as a crude form of a workflow implementation. >>>> I have >>>> added my vote to this issue because I believe a lot of the ECAs >>>> should go >>>> away. It might help your cause to start a discussion on the dev mailing >>>> list and see if you can rally some more support for ECA removal. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Incorrect use of eca for create/updateShipment >>>>> ---------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Key: OFBIZ-4501 >>>>> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4501 >>>>> Project: OFBiz >>>>> Issue Type: Bug >>>>> Components: product >>>>> Affects Versions: Release Branch 11.04, SVN trunk >>>>> Reporter: Kiran Gawde >>>>> Attachments: >>>> OFBIZ-4501-ModifiedCreateUpdateShipmentService.patch, >>>> OFBIZ-4501-ModifiedCreateUpdateShipmentService.patch, >>>> OFBIZ-4501-ShipmentServiceXml.patch, >>>> OFBIZ-4501-ShipmentServiceXml.patch, >>>> OFBIZ-4501-ShipmentServiceXml.patch >>>>> >>>>> createShipment service doesn't populate the facility and order info >>>>> into >>>> shipment. Instead it is handled by eca rules. This is wrong. ECA rules >>>> should be used to update other objects or cause other actions and not >>>> update the object that is being committed. This makes it difficult to >>>> traverse the code. Can also cause bugs that are difficult troubleshoot. >>>> e.g: In this case, facilities are populated in shipment by method >>>> setShipmentSettingsFromPrimaryOrder, but eca rule checking for >>>> originFacilityId gets executed before it is populated. Following eca >>>> rules >>>> should be removed and instead the code should be added to >>>> create/updateshipment methods. >>>>> <!-- if new originFacilityId or destinationFacilityId, get >>>>> settings >>>> from facilities --> >>>>> <eca service="createShipment" event="commit"> >>>>> <condition field-name="originFacilityId" >>>> operator="is-not-empty"/> >>>>> <action service="setShipmentSettingsFromFacilities" >>>> mode="sync"/> >>>>> </eca> >>>>> <eca service="createShipment" event="commit"> >>>>> <condition field-name="destinationFacilityId" >>>> operator="is-not-empty"/> >>>>> <action service="setShipmentSettingsFromFacilities" >>>> mode="sync"/> >>>>> </eca> >>>>> <eca service="updateShipment" event="commit"> >>>>> <condition-field field-name="originFacilityId" >>>> operator="not-equals" to-field-name="oldOriginFacilityId"/> >>>>> <condition field-name="originFacilityId" >>>> operator="is-not-empty"/> >>>>> <action service="setShipmentSettingsFromFacilities" >>>> mode="sync"/> >>>>> </eca> >>>>> <eca service="updateShipment" event="commit"> >>>>> <condition-field field-name="destinationFacilityId" >>>> operator="not-equals" to-field-name="oldDestinationFacilityId"/> >>>>> <condition field-name="destinationFacilityId" >>>> operator="is-not-empty"/> >>>>> <action service="setShipmentSettingsFromFacilities" >>>> mode="sync"/> >>>>> </eca> >>>>> <!-- if new primaryOrderId, get settings from order --> >>>>> <eca service="createShipment" event="commit"> >>>>> <condition field-name="primaryOrderId" >>>>> operator="is-not-empty"/> >>>>> <action service="setShipmentSettingsFromPrimaryOrder" >>>> mode="sync"/> >>>>> </eca> >>>>> <eca service="updateShipment" event="commit"> >>>>> <condition-field field-name="primaryOrderId" >>>> operator="not-equals" to-field-name="oldPrimaryOrderId"/> >>>>> <condition field-name="primaryOrderId" >>>>> operator="is-not-empty"/> >>>>> <action service="setShipmentSettingsFromPrimaryOrder" >>>> mode="sync"/> >>>>> </eca> >>>> -- >>>> This message is automatically generated by JIRA. >>>> If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA >>>> administrators: >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa >>>> >>>> For more information on JIRA, see: >>>> http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira >
