Re: Upgrading the Authorize.net AIM API

+1 Nameet, sounds good. Thanks & Regards --- Arun Patidar Director of Information SystemsHotWax Commerce On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 6:31 AM Scott Gray wrote: > Maybe, but I see no reason to have an architecture discussion as a > prerequisite for a simple API update. > >

Re: Upgrading the Authorize.net AIM API

Maybe, but I see no reason to have an architecture discussion as a prerequisite for a simple API update. Regards Scott On Tue, 25 Sep 2018, 06:03 Jacques Le Roux, wrote: > I guess Pierre is referring to > https://markmail.org/message/zf5tz7qpgokldvtl and above... > > Jacques > > > Le 22/09/2018

Re: Upgrading the Authorize.net AIM API

I guess Pierre is referring to https://markmail.org/message/zf5tz7qpgokldvtl and above... Jacques Le 22/09/2018 à 14:12, Pierre Smits a écrit : I believe first the discussion on how we’re going to deal with these kind of 3rd party solution integrations, whether they be fintech, logistic or ot

Re: Relation type in SecurityGroupPermission entity

Indeed, thanks Deepak This is from pre Apache era by David. I finally see no harm keeping it as is. Jacques Le 25/09/2018 à 11:07, Deepak Dixit a écrit : It looks good to have one FK relationship while reviewing entity def found following description. This is by design before proceeding we n

Re: Relation type in SecurityGroupPermission entity

It looks good to have one FK relationship while reviewing entity def found following description. This is by design before proceeding we need to check this. "Defines a permission available to a security group; there is no FK to SecurityPermission because we want to leave open the possibility of ad

Re: Relation type in SecurityGroupPermission entity

+1 Jacques Le 24/09/2018 à 08:28, Julien NICOLAS a écrit : +1 Le 22/09/2018 à 14:15, Deepak Nigam a écrit : IMO, here the relation type should be 'one' here to maintain the referential integrity. WDYT?