[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4709?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13214506#comment-13214506
]
Sascha Rodekamp commented on OFBIZ-4709:
----------------------------------------
Yes Jacopo, we should definitely the existing tables.
I'm a little bit afraid, that to much content information will be stored in the
database tables.
But i see no way handling content without a connection to the DB so it's ok to
use the content entities to manage it, if we have a DB lookup anyway we can use
the from/thruDate filter.
Anyway another point which comes to my mind. Would you disable the current
product content storage? Or should we use the current entity based storage and
the repository storage parallel? I think of saying the *ContentWorker which
storage point he have to use (entity or repository).
Means if someone want to use the DB, he can configure to use a
ProductEntityContentWorker if he otherwise want to use the repository he can
configure the ProductRepositoryContentWorker. The content Worker encapsulate
all the access to the content store point.
> Support jcr-stored file content within Applications
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OFBIZ-4709
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4709
> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: ALL APPLICATIONS
> Affects Versions: SVN trunk
> Reporter: Anne Jessel
> Assignee: Sascha Rodekamp
>
> My current requirements:
> * store uploaded documents (pdf and scans), mainly for legal compliance
> reasons
> * old document versions should be accessible
> * documents should be associated with existing entities. So far I've
> identified a need to associate with Product, Party, OrderHeader,
> ShipmentItem, probably InventoryItemDetail and maybe WorkEffort. I would not
> be surprised if we discover more as this project proceeds.
> * documents may have a type and a purpose, though sometimes I'm not sure of
> the difference. For example, type: drivers_licence might be purpose:
> identification, and/or purpose: permission_to_drive, while type:
> shipping_label would be purpose: shipping_label
> * many documents have an expiry date (e.g. drivers licence)
> * a document may become invalid before its expiry date (e.g. because the law
> changed)
> * a specific version of a document may need to be associated with an entity.
> For example, a licence agreement document accessed via a Product should
> always be the latest version. However the version of that document actually
> shipped with the product should be associated with the ShipmentItem.
> * a single document might be associated with more than one entity type: see
> the example in the previous point
> Not all documents require all of the above. For example, there are some
> documents where we don't need to track which version was used when, and some
> without expiry dates.
> I'm thinking of using the from/thruDate pattern to handle expiry related
> needs. I'd like to put as much information into the jcr path as possible, so
> less needs to go into entities, as per Sascha's suggestion on the dev ML.
> However (at least) from/thruDate and which version of a document was actually
> used where will presumably need to be stored in an entity.
--
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
