Re: Tutorial Videos

[innate Genius]

Hi,

Would like to thank pranay. He’s Videos are very helpful. Would also suggest to 
record some tutorials demonstrating the capabilities and workflow of ofbiz from 
users perspective.
Eg. Data Entry, Generating Reports, Creating Masters, Etc.


Regards,

Pratiek


> On 03-May-2017, at 10:09 AM, Deepak Dixit  
> wrote:
> 
> Here is another tutorial video:
> 
> - Data Setup using XML - Release 16.11 
> 
> Thanks Pranay for contribution.
> 
> Thanks & Regards
> --
> Deepak Dixit
> www.hotwaxsystems.com
> 
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Deepak Dixit  com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Here is another video from Pranay,
>> - Database Entities 
>> 
>> Thanks Pranay
>> 
>> Thanks & Regards
>> --
>> Deepak Dixit
>> www.hotwaxsystems.com
>> 
>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Pranay Pandey <
>> pranay.pan...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Thank you so much community, I am glad that these tutorials are coming
>>> along nicely and being found useful.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Pranay Pandey
>>> Senior Manager, Enterprise Software Development
>>> HotWax Systems
>>> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Aditya Sharma <
>>> aditya.sha...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
>>> 
 Very elucidative videos. Thank you Pranay and Deepak.  :)
 
 Thanks & Regards,
 Aditya Sharma
 Enterprise Software Engineer
 Hotwax Systems
 http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/
 
 On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Michael Brohl <
>>> michael.br...@ecomify.de>
 wrote:
 
> Great work, thanks for your efforts Praney and Deepak.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Michael
> 
> Am 09.03.17 um 13:48 schrieb Deepak Dixit:
> 
> Hi Everyone,
>> 
>> Pranay has created two video tutorials, these have been published on
>>> our
>> OFBiz YouTube channel :
>> 1 - Apache OFBiz Mailing Lists > ?v=bIS2kftvsq4>
>> 2 - OFBiz Beginners Tutorial - Basic Setup Release16.11
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks Pranay for these helpful videos.
>> 
>> Thanks & Regards
>> --
>> Deepak Dixit
>> www.hotwaxsystems.com
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
 
>>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: Difference between "id" and "id-ne" field type

[William Cunningham]

To: user@ofbiz.apache.org

Could you remove me from the mailing list?

Thanks
Bill


William Cunningham
15 Bernard Avenue
Barrington, RI 02806
401-575-9164
william.cunning...@live.com



On May 3, 2017, at 1:42 AM, Aditya Sharma 
mailto:aditya.sha...@hotwaxsystems.com>> wrote:

Hi Scott,

As there is very less information available with the commit I found it
quite difficult to find that discussion. Maybe I just missed out something.
Could you please just help me trace that out to understand it well?

Thanks & Regards,
Aditya Sharma
Enterprise Software Engineer
HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/

 

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Aditya Sharma <
aditya.sha...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:

Hi Taher,

Totally agreed to that it should be at entity engine level and default to
false as that way it will not affect the current implementations and will
give more scope for its enhancements to cater specific needs.

My recommendation is to reintroduce the validation attribute. However!
the
validation IMO should happen at the entity engine level, not the database
level (for not null), and also the default value should be false if
omitted. We also need to think of the design in respect of the validation
attributes and how they apply.



Thanks & Regards,
Aditya Sharma
Enterprise Software Engineer
HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/

 

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Scott Gray 
wrote:

It was removed purposefully and there was a discussion about it. I'd
suggest we all need to go back and look at that discussion before deciding
how to proceed.

Regards
Scott

On 1/05/2017 19:03, "Taher Alkhateeb"  wrote:

I don't have the historical context, so please excuse if I'm off.

My recommendation is to reintroduce the validation attribute. However!
the
validation IMO should happen at the entity engine level, not the
database
level (for not null), and also the default value should be false if
omitted. We also need to think of the design in respect of the
validation
attributes and how they apply.

On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Aditya Sharma <
aditya.sha...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:

Hi,

While creating an entity I was in ambiguity whether to go for "*id*"
or "
*id-ne*" field type. When I googled it I came across this very
enriching
discussion.

http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/EntityEngine-field-types-
td2251546.html

As stated, an "id-ne" field can only have a *non-empty* value.

I was very curious to know how it is implemented in OFBiz. I found
that
almost all the *fieldtype*.xml* files have *same* *sql-type* and
*java-type*
for these 2 field types but I couldn't get any trace of how that
not-empty
constraint is levied upon "id-ne" fields.

I even looked at table structure for those fields having "id-ne" field
type
but there was no "not-null" constraint at even the database level.

When dug into it further I can across this commit where validate
elements
were removed from fieldtype*.xml files.


http://markmail.org/message/otec62xiwkpjttkq

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=959708

But I can't get why it was removed and when it was removed whether
there
was some implementation that took its place for those validations.


To further check if it even works I found an OOTB entity having a
non-primary key "id-ne" field. I found that "*Picklist*" entity has a
field
*shipmentMethodTypeId* as "id- ne" type. When we *create a picklist*
for
an
order from Facility Manager, *shipmentMethodTypeId* can be *empty*.


If my explorations are correct currently there is no difference
between
"id" and "id-ne" at the implementation level and there should be a
Jira
for
it.

If I missed out something, can someone please enlighten me with that
and
help me understanding it well.


Thanks & Regards,
Aditya Sharma
Enterprise Software Engineer
HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/

 

Re: Difference between "id" and "id-ne" field type

[Jacques Le Roux]

Please help yourself: http://ofbiz.apache.org/mailing-lists.html

Jacques


Le 03/05/2017 à 13:25, William Cunningham a écrit :

To: user@ofbiz.apache.org

Could you remove me from the mailing list?

Thanks
Bill


William Cunningham
15 Bernard Avenue
Barrington, RI 02806
401-575-9164
william.cunning...@live.com



On May 3, 2017, at 1:42 AM, Aditya Sharma 
mailto:aditya.sha...@hotwaxsystems.com>> wrote:

Hi Scott,

As there is very less information available with the commit I found it
quite difficult to find that discussion. Maybe I just missed out something.
Could you please just help me trace that out to understand it well?

Thanks & Regards,
Aditya Sharma
Enterprise Software Engineer
HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/

  

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Aditya Sharma <
aditya.sha...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:

Hi Taher,

Totally agreed to that it should be at entity engine level and default to
false as that way it will not affect the current implementations and will
give more scope for its enhancements to cater specific needs.

My recommendation is to reintroduce the validation attribute. However!
the
validation IMO should happen at the entity engine level, not the database
level (for not null), and also the default value should be false if
omitted. We also need to think of the design in respect of the validation
attributes and how they apply.



Thanks & Regards,
Aditya Sharma
Enterprise Software Engineer
HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/

  

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Scott Gray 
wrote:

It was removed purposefully and there was a discussion about it. I'd
suggest we all need to go back and look at that discussion before deciding
how to proceed.

Regards
Scott

On 1/05/2017 19:03, "Taher Alkhateeb"  wrote:

I don't have the historical context, so please excuse if I'm off.

My recommendation is to reintroduce the validation attribute. However!
the
validation IMO should happen at the entity engine level, not the
database
level (for not null), and also the default value should be false if
omitted. We also need to think of the design in respect of the
validation
attributes and how they apply.

On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Aditya Sharma <
aditya.sha...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:

Hi,

While creating an entity I was in ambiguity whether to go for "*id*"
or "
*id-ne*" field type. When I googled it I came across this very
enriching
discussion.

http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/EntityEngine-field-types-
td2251546.html

As stated, an "id-ne" field can only have a *non-empty* value.

I was very curious to know how it is implemented in OFBiz. I found
that
almost all the *fieldtype*.xml* files have *same* *sql-type* and
*java-type*
for these 2 field types but I couldn't get any trace of how that
not-empty
constraint is levied upon "id-ne" fields.

I even looked at table structure for those fields having "id-ne" field
type
but there was no "not-null" constraint at even the database level.

When dug into it further I can across this commit where validate
elements
were removed from fieldtype*.xml files.


http://markmail.org/message/otec62xiwkpjttkq

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=959708

But I can't get why it was removed and when it was removed whether
there
was some implementation that took its place for those validations.


To further check if it even works I found an OOTB entity having a
non-primary key "id-ne" field. I found that "*Picklist*" entity has a
field
*shipmentMethodTypeId* as "id- ne" type. When we *create a picklist*
for
an
order from Facility Manager, *shipmentMethodTypeId* can be *empty*.


If my explorations are correct currently there is no difference
between
"id" and "id-ne" at the implementation level and there should be a
Jira
for
it.

If I missed out something, can someone please enlighten me with that
and
help me understanding it well.


Thanks & Regards,
Aditya Sharma
Enterprise Software Engineer
HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/

  

Re: Tutorial Videos

[Pranay Pandey]

Thanks Pratiek for feedback and suggestions. Yes I agree, we must have some
videos from users perspective too. You can like this document on Confluence
for regular updates on old and upcoming tutorial videos-
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/g9SnAw

Best regards,

Pranay Pandey
HotWax Systems
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 4:14 PM, innate Genius 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Would like to thank pranay. He’s Videos are very helpful. Would also
> suggest to record some tutorials demonstrating the capabilities and
> workflow of ofbiz from users perspective.
> Eg. Data Entry, Generating Reports, Creating Masters, Etc.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Pratiek
>
>
> > On 03-May-2017, at 10:09 AM, Deepak Dixit  com> wrote:
> >
> > Here is another tutorial video:
> >
> > - Data Setup using XML - Release 16.11 
> >
> > Thanks Pranay for contribution.
> >
> > Thanks & Regards
> > --
> > Deepak Dixit
> > www.hotwaxsystems.com
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Deepak Dixit
>  > com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Here is another video from Pranay,
> >> - Database Entities 
> >>
> >> Thanks Pranay
> >>
> >> Thanks & Regards
> >> --
> >> Deepak Dixit
> >> www.hotwaxsystems.com
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Pranay Pandey <
> >> pranay.pan...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thank you so much community, I am glad that these tutorials are coming
> >>> along nicely and being found useful.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>>
> >>> Pranay Pandey
> >>> Senior Manager, Enterprise Software Development
> >>> HotWax Systems
> >>> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Aditya Sharma <
> >>> aditya.sha...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
> >>>
>  Very elucidative videos. Thank you Pranay and Deepak.  :)
> 
>  Thanks & Regards,
>  Aditya Sharma
>  Enterprise Software Engineer
>  Hotwax Systems
>  http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/
> 
>  On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Michael Brohl <
> >>> michael.br...@ecomify.de>
>  wrote:
> 
> > Great work, thanks for your efforts Praney and Deepak.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > Am 09.03.17 um 13:48 schrieb Deepak Dixit:
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> >>
> >> Pranay has created two video tutorials, these have been published on
> >>> our
> >> OFBiz YouTube channel :
> >> 1 - Apache OFBiz Mailing Lists  >> ?v=bIS2kftvsq4>
> >> 2 - OFBiz Beginners Tutorial - Basic Setup Release16.11
> >> 
> >>
> >> Thanks Pranay for these helpful videos.
> >>
> >> Thanks & Regards
> >> --
> >> Deepak Dixit
> >> www.hotwaxsystems.com
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Re: Tutorial Videos

[Pranay Pandey]

Thanks Deepak!

Best regards,

Pranay Pandey
Senior Manager, Enterprise Software Development
HotWax Systems
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Deepak Dixit <
deepak.di...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:

> Here is another tutorial video:
>
> - Data Setup using XML - Release 16.11 
>
> Thanks Pranay for contribution.
>
> Thanks & Regards
> --
> Deepak Dixit
> www.hotwaxsystems.com
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Deepak Dixit  com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Here is another video from Pranay,
> > - Database Entities 
> >
> > Thanks Pranay
> >
> > Thanks & Regards
> > --
> > Deepak Dixit
> > www.hotwaxsystems.com
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Pranay Pandey <
> > pranay.pan...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Thank you so much community, I am glad that these tutorials are coming
> >> along nicely and being found useful.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Pranay Pandey
> >> Senior Manager, Enterprise Software Development
> >> HotWax Systems
> >> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/
> >>
> >> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Aditya Sharma <
> >> aditya.sha...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Very elucidative videos. Thank you Pranay and Deepak.  :)
> >> >
> >> > Thanks & Regards,
> >> > Aditya Sharma
> >> > Enterprise Software Engineer
> >> > Hotwax Systems
> >> > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Michael Brohl <
> >> michael.br...@ecomify.de>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Great work, thanks for your efforts Praney and Deepak.
> >> > >
> >> > > Best regards,
> >> > >
> >> > > Michael
> >> > >
> >> > > Am 09.03.17 um 13:48 schrieb Deepak Dixit:
> >> > >
> >> > > Hi Everyone,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Pranay has created two video tutorials, these have been published
> on
> >> our
> >> > >> OFBiz YouTube channel :
> >> > >> 1 - Apache OFBiz Mailing Lists  >> > >> ?v=bIS2kftvsq4>
> >> > >> 2 - OFBiz Beginners Tutorial - Basic Setup Release16.11
> >> > >> 
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Thanks Pranay for these helpful videos.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Thanks & Regards
> >> > >> --
> >> > >> Deepak Dixit
> >> > >> www.hotwaxsystems.com
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

[Moderated mail] Regarding Out of memory issue for older Ofbiz 9.4/10

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi Amit,

Your message has been moderated and copied on user ML

Please use and subscribe rather to the user ML for such questions
see why here http://ofbiz.apache.org/mailing-lists.html
You will get a better support and it's more fair to share with everybody

The wider the audience the better the answers you might get

Thanks

Jacques
PS: Pierre and I had a discussion on Hipchat


ForwardedMessage.eml

Sujet :
Regarding Out of memory issue for older Ofbiz 9.4/10
De :
amit singh 
Date :
02/05/2017 22:27

Pour :
user@ofbiz.apache.org


Hi Pierre and Jacques,

As discussed earlier writing mail to inform email address.

Discussion was regarding out of memory issue on IBM AIX with older Ofbiz 
version.

Regards,
Amit

Re: Difference between "id" and "id-ne" field type

[Scott Gray]

Took a while to dig it out but here it is:
http://ofbiz.markmail.org/thread/c6ee3ewyo6jpik7k

It's not as in-depth as I'd hoped, but it was purposefully removed all the
same.

Regards
Scott

On 3 May 2017 at 17:42, Aditya Sharma 
wrote:

> Hi Scott,
>
> As there is very less information available with the commit I found it
> quite difficult to find that discussion. Maybe I just missed out something.
> Could you please just help me trace that out to understand it well?
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Aditya Sharma
> Enterprise Software Engineer
> HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/
>
>   
>
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Aditya Sharma <
> aditya.sha...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Taher,
> >
> > Totally agreed to that it should be at entity engine level and default to
> > false as that way it will not affect the current implementations and will
> > give more scope for its enhancements to cater specific needs.
> >
> > > My recommendation is to reintroduce the validation attribute. However!
> > the
> > > validation IMO should happen at the entity engine level, not the
> database
> > > level (for not null), and also the default value should be false if
> > > omitted. We also need to think of the design in respect of the
> validation
> > > attributes and how they apply.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Thanks & Regards,
> > Aditya Sharma
> > Enterprise Software Engineer
> > HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
> > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/
> >
> >   
> >
> > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Scott Gray <
> scott.g...@hotwaxsystems.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> It was removed purposefully and there was a discussion about it. I'd
> >> suggest we all need to go back and look at that discussion before
> deciding
> >> how to proceed.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Scott
> >>
> >> On 1/05/2017 19:03, "Taher Alkhateeb" 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I don't have the historical context, so please excuse if I'm off.
> >> >
> >> > My recommendation is to reintroduce the validation attribute. However!
> >> the
> >> > validation IMO should happen at the entity engine level, not the
> >> database
> >> > level (for not null), and also the default value should be false if
> >> > omitted. We also need to think of the design in respect of the
> >> validation
> >> > attributes and how they apply.
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Aditya Sharma <
> >> > aditya.sha...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi,
> >> > >
> >> > > While creating an entity I was in ambiguity whether to go for "*id*"
> >> or "
> >> > > *id-ne*" field type. When I googled it I came across this very
> >> enriching
> >> > > discussion.
> >> > >
> >> > > http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/EntityEngine-field-types-
> >> > td2251546.html
> >> > >
> >> > > As stated, an "id-ne" field can only have a *non-empty* value.
> >> > >
> >> > > I was very curious to know how it is implemented in OFBiz. I found
> >> that
> >> > > almost all the *fieldtype*.xml* files have *same* *sql-type* and
> >> > > *java-type*
> >> > > for these 2 field types but I couldn't get any trace of how that
> >> > not-empty
> >> > > constraint is levied upon "id-ne" fields.
> >> > >
> >> > > I even looked at table structure for those fields having "id-ne"
> field
> >> > type
> >> > > but there was no "not-null" constraint at even the database level.
> >> > >
> >> > > When dug into it further I can across this commit where validate
> >> elements
> >> > > were removed from fieldtype*.xml files.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > http://markmail.org/message/otec62xiwkpjttkq
> >> > >
> >> > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=959708
> >> > >
> >> > > But I can't get why it was removed and when it was removed whether
> >> there
> >> > > was some implementation that took its place for those validations.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > To further check if it even works I found an OOTB entity having a
> >> > > non-primary key "id-ne" field. I found that "*Picklist*" entity has
> a
> >> > field
> >> > > *shipmentMethodTypeId* as "id- ne" type. When we *create a picklist*
> >> for
> >> > an
> >> > > order from Facility Manager, *shipmentMethodTypeId* can be *empty*.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > If my explorations are correct currently there is no difference
> >> between
> >> > > "id" and "id-ne" at the implementation level and there should be a
> >> Jira
> >> > for
> >> > > it.
> >> > >
> >> > > If I missed out something, can someone please enlighten me with that
> >> and
> >> > > help me understanding it well.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks & Regards,
> >> > > Aditya Sharma
> >> > > Enterprise Software Engineer
> >> > > HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
> >> > > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/
> >> > >
> >> > >   
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

Re: Difference between "id" and "id-ne" field type

[Taher Alkhateeb]

Hmmm I was actually rethinking about this, and this reminds me somewhat of
the "Bounded context" concept from DDD. Some services might want to
validate while others don't on certain fields depending on context, and
hence delegating that validation to services makes sense (no domain exists
in OFBiz).

The problem of the existence of id-ne lingers though. It's putting
unneceasary cognitive strain on users to figure out what is it and what to
do with it. Also, this means no validation can happen for entity-auto CRUD
services.

So, I'm a bit on the fence, leaning slightly towards removing id-ne, but I
think we must choose one of:
1- removing id-ne
2- reintroducing validation

On May 4, 2017 3:10 AM, "Scott Gray"  wrote:

> Took a while to dig it out but here it is:
> http://ofbiz.markmail.org/thread/c6ee3ewyo6jpik7k
>
> It's not as in-depth as I'd hoped, but it was purposefully removed all the
> same.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 3 May 2017 at 17:42, Aditya Sharma 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Scott,
> >
> > As there is very less information available with the commit I found it
> > quite difficult to find that discussion. Maybe I just missed out
> something.
> > Could you please just help me trace that out to understand it well?
> >
> > Thanks & Regards,
> > Aditya Sharma
> > Enterprise Software Engineer
> > HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
> > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/
> >
> >   
> >
> > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Aditya Sharma <
> > aditya.sha...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Taher,
> > >
> > > Totally agreed to that it should be at entity engine level and default
> to
> > > false as that way it will not affect the current implementations and
> will
> > > give more scope for its enhancements to cater specific needs.
> > >
> > > > My recommendation is to reintroduce the validation attribute.
> However!
> > > the
> > > > validation IMO should happen at the entity engine level, not the
> > database
> > > > level (for not null), and also the default value should be false if
> > > > omitted. We also need to think of the design in respect of the
> > validation
> > > > attributes and how they apply.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > Aditya Sharma
> > > Enterprise Software Engineer
> > > HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
> > > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Scott Gray <
> > scott.g...@hotwaxsystems.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> It was removed purposefully and there was a discussion about it. I'd
> > >> suggest we all need to go back and look at that discussion before
> > deciding
> > >> how to proceed.
> > >>
> > >> Regards
> > >> Scott
> > >>
> > >> On 1/05/2017 19:03, "Taher Alkhateeb" 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I don't have the historical context, so please excuse if I'm off.
> > >> >
> > >> > My recommendation is to reintroduce the validation attribute.
> However!
> > >> the
> > >> > validation IMO should happen at the entity engine level, not the
> > >> database
> > >> > level (for not null), and also the default value should be false if
> > >> > omitted. We also need to think of the design in respect of the
> > >> validation
> > >> > attributes and how they apply.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Aditya Sharma <
> > >> > aditya.sha...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Hi,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > While creating an entity I was in ambiguity whether to go for
> "*id*"
> > >> or "
> > >> > > *id-ne*" field type. When I googled it I came across this very
> > >> enriching
> > >> > > discussion.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/EntityEngine-field-types-
> > >> > td2251546.html
> > >> > >
> > >> > > As stated, an "id-ne" field can only have a *non-empty* value.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I was very curious to know how it is implemented in OFBiz. I found
> > >> that
> > >> > > almost all the *fieldtype*.xml* files have *same* *sql-type* and
> > >> > > *java-type*
> > >> > > for these 2 field types but I couldn't get any trace of how that
> > >> > not-empty
> > >> > > constraint is levied upon "id-ne" fields.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I even looked at table structure for those fields having "id-ne"
> > field
> > >> > type
> > >> > > but there was no "not-null" constraint at even the database level.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > When dug into it further I can across this commit where validate
> > >> elements
> > >> > > were removed from fieldtype*.xml files.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > http://markmail.org/message/otec62xiwkpjttkq
> > >> > >
> > >> > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=959708
> > >> > >
> > >> > > But I can't get why it was removed and when it was removed whether
> > >> there
> > >> > > was some implementation that took its place for those validations.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > To further check if it even works I found an OOTB entity having a
> > >> > > non-primar

Re: Difference between "id" and "id-ne" field type

[Scott Gray]

Chances are the field type was left for backwards compatibility.  I'm ok
with it being removed though.

Regards
Scott

On 4 May 2017 at 15:32, Taher Alkhateeb  wrote:

> Hmmm I was actually rethinking about this, and this reminds me somewhat of
> the "Bounded context" concept from DDD. Some services might want to
> validate while others don't on certain fields depending on context, and
> hence delegating that validation to services makes sense (no domain exists
> in OFBiz).
>
> The problem of the existence of id-ne lingers though. It's putting
> unneceasary cognitive strain on users to figure out what is it and what to
> do with it. Also, this means no validation can happen for entity-auto CRUD
> services.
>
> So, I'm a bit on the fence, leaning slightly towards removing id-ne, but I
> think we must choose one of:
> 1- removing id-ne
> 2- reintroducing validation
>
> On May 4, 2017 3:10 AM, "Scott Gray"  wrote:
>
> > Took a while to dig it out but here it is:
> > http://ofbiz.markmail.org/thread/c6ee3ewyo6jpik7k
> >
> > It's not as in-depth as I'd hoped, but it was purposefully removed all
> the
> > same.
> >
> > Regards
> > Scott
> >
> > On 3 May 2017 at 17:42, Aditya Sharma 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Scott,
> > >
> > > As there is very less information available with the commit I found it
> > > quite difficult to find that discussion. Maybe I just missed out
> > something.
> > > Could you please just help me trace that out to understand it well?
> > >
> > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > Aditya Sharma
> > > Enterprise Software Engineer
> > > HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
> > > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Aditya Sharma <
> > > aditya.sha...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Taher,
> > > >
> > > > Totally agreed to that it should be at entity engine level and
> default
> > to
> > > > false as that way it will not affect the current implementations and
> > will
> > > > give more scope for its enhancements to cater specific needs.
> > > >
> > > > > My recommendation is to reintroduce the validation attribute.
> > However!
> > > > the
> > > > > validation IMO should happen at the entity engine level, not the
> > > database
> > > > > level (for not null), and also the default value should be false if
> > > > > omitted. We also need to think of the design in respect of the
> > > validation
> > > > > attributes and how they apply.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > > Aditya Sharma
> > > > Enterprise Software Engineer
> > > > HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
> > > > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/
> > > >
> > > >   
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Scott Gray <
> > > scott.g...@hotwaxsystems.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> It was removed purposefully and there was a discussion about it. I'd
> > > >> suggest we all need to go back and look at that discussion before
> > > deciding
> > > >> how to proceed.
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards
> > > >> Scott
> > > >>
> > > >> On 1/05/2017 19:03, "Taher Alkhateeb" 
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > I don't have the historical context, so please excuse if I'm off.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > My recommendation is to reintroduce the validation attribute.
> > However!
> > > >> the
> > > >> > validation IMO should happen at the entity engine level, not the
> > > >> database
> > > >> > level (for not null), and also the default value should be false
> if
> > > >> > omitted. We also need to think of the design in respect of the
> > > >> validation
> > > >> > attributes and how they apply.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Aditya Sharma <
> > > >> > aditya.sha...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Hi,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > While creating an entity I was in ambiguity whether to go for
> > "*id*"
> > > >> or "
> > > >> > > *id-ne*" field type. When I googled it I came across this very
> > > >> enriching
> > > >> > > discussion.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/EntityEngine-field-types-
> > > >> > td2251546.html
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > As stated, an "id-ne" field can only have a *non-empty* value.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I was very curious to know how it is implemented in OFBiz. I
> found
> > > >> that
> > > >> > > almost all the *fieldtype*.xml* files have *same* *sql-type* and
> > > >> > > *java-type*
> > > >> > > for these 2 field types but I couldn't get any trace of how that
> > > >> > not-empty
> > > >> > > constraint is levied upon "id-ne" fields.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I even looked at table structure for those fields having "id-ne"
> > > field
> > > >> > type
> > > >> > > but there was no "not-null" constraint at even the database
> level.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > When dug into it further I can across this commit where validate
> > > >> elements
> > > >> > > were removed from fieldtype*.xml files.
> > > >> > >