From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Jonathon -- Improov wrote: [...snip...] > > Original field names may lose their > > meaning after some evolution, but at least there's less change > > management/propagation required as compared to if we did a refactor > > (even a simple rename of field). One example of such vestige is the name > > "org.ofbiz.odbc" entity group (group no longer requires use of ODBC?). > > > > Yes, I think that we should change that name to something more generic > in order to avoid confusion: for example "org.ofbiz.external" +1 ! Or what is used for : "org.ofbiz.shipext", next time the same (name reflecting use, semantic in it) ... Jacques > Jacopo
