Hi, Dan and David.
After deleting some addTo/removeFrom etc. codes (yes, it was a real pleasure
:-) I've been playing around Estatio and looking into the source. Liked a lot
the Lock - Unlock functionality and implementation and also the
EstatioRefDataObject, EstatioTransactionalObject
Despite clicking on "Administration - install demo fixtures", no fixtures seem
to be loaded into the database. The log does not show any insert. Despite
that, I was able to create some entities and I've tested that. Not sure if I've
done something wrong or is there something not commiting, flushing, etc.
Just some notes taken while testing related to behavior:
Assets - New Property
• Area, City and Country are required fields and are the creation
action does not have them as parameters, so they are created in an inconsistent
state. As no Countries have been installed by the fixture, no further changes
can be made on the Asset fields.
• On Person, when clicking on the "Add Registration" action the action
dialog does not appear. Seems there's just a page refresh.
• Lock action seems to not prevent from editing.
Other - New Charge:
• The action parameter has no name.
Accounts:
• There is no "New Accounts" action on the main menu. Despite they can
be created from each Party, perhaps it will be interesting to have a menu
option also.
Regards,
Oscar
El 19/07/2013, a las 15:36, Dan Haywood <[email protected]>
escribió:
> On 17 July 2013 09:45, David Tildesley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Issues with getting it running:
>>
>
> Thanks for this feedback, David.
>
>
>
>>
>> ISIS: date related tests [1] (commented the tests out temporarily)
>>
>
> Yup, noted. I have no intention of fixing this, because it's an issue with
> the SQL ObjectStore, not the DN ObjectStore. I'll raise a separate thread
> on this to discuss.
>
>
>
>> Estatio: [2] (fixed the source).
>>
>>
> Wierd. Must be different Java compilers. The fixes you made are for
> arrays of the @javax.jdo.annotations.Query annotations, eg:
>
> @javax.jdo.annotations.Queries({
> @javax.jdo.annotations.Query(...),
> @javax.jdo.annotations.Query(...),
> @javax.jdo.annotations.Query(...),
> })
>
> The issue is that trailing comma. In Oracle JDK 1.6's javac, which is what
> I use to compile with currently, that trailing comma is fine. I'll remove
> it throughout, though, for maximum compatibility.
>
>
>
>> Usability issue:
>>
>> Create a communication channel from Person - once you've created the
>> communication channel there is no obvious way back to the Person instance
>> you were dealing with.
>
>
> Yes; that's because we want CommunicationChannel to be a fairly reusable
> concept (attachable to Parties, to FixedAssets etc). But you are right, it
> creates a dead-end in the application.
>
>
>
>> I guess if there was a "find Person" a bookmark would have existed if that
>> was the initial method to locate the person. However when you have just
>> created the person and you are adding details such as "communication
>> channel" there is no bookmark to relocate the person in context. I guess
>> this is more a general wicket viewer observation.
>>
>>
> Rather: I think it's a poor model. One of the things with Isis (or rather:
> the naked objects pattern), is that it surfaces poor modelling issues...
> there's nowhere for it to hide or be fudged over. I'm sure you've
> discovered this yourself.
>
> In this case I've made a CommunicationChannel have an owner property (of
> type CommunicationChannelOwner). This is a polymorphic relation, and is
> modelled using:
>
> @javax.jdo.annotations.Persistent(extensions = { @Extension(vendorName
> = "datanucleus", key = "mapping-strategy", value = "per-implementation") })
> private CommunicationChannelOwner owner;
>
>
> In fact, I think I need to make some further changes here... the PowerType
> concept that we were using to be able to polymorphically create subtypes
> doesn't really work with mandatory properties in those subtypes. I think
> I'll go off and play with that.
>
>
>
>
>> Thanks for putting this up - we'll keep exploring it.
>>
>>
> Do, please.
>
> Cheers
> Dan
>
>
>
>> Regards,
>> David.
>>
>>
