Comment to : http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBTECH/General+Entity+Overview

[hans_bakker]

I have added a proposal for change as a comment to the document at:

http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBTECH/General+Entity+Overview

If there are no objections i will incorporate it in the text.

--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive prices

[Scott Gray]

Hi Hans
I see a proposition there, but no reasons why.  What problems are you having
with the way things are currently handled and how does this change address
those problems?  I'm not objecting as such, I'd just like to understand why
we need to change.

Thanks
Scott

2008/11/24 Hans Bakker <[hidden email]>

> I have added a proposal for change as a comment to the document at:
>
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBTECH/General+Entity+Overview
>
> If there are no objections i will incorporate it in the text.
>
> --
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive prices
>
>

[hans_bakker]

if you have more than one change on the same entity "old" will not work
anymore..

On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 20:22 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:

> Hi Hans
> I see a proposition there, but no reasons why.  What problems are you having
> with the way things are currently handled and how does this change address
> those problems?  I'm not objecting as such, I'd just like to understand why
> we need to change.
>
> Thanks
> Scott
>
> 2008/11/24 Hans Bakker <[hidden email]>
>
> > I have added a proposal for change as a comment to the document at:
> >
> > http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBTECH/General+Entity+Overview
> >
> > If there are no objections i will incorporate it in the text.
> >
> > --
> > Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive prices
> >
> >

--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive prices

[Scott Gray]

Ah ok, so you're talking about when the pk changes and then changes again
but the entity name remains the same.
I guess the idea sounds fine to me, my only concern would be how clear the
numbers are to people not familiar with what they mean.  Also entities
starting with numbers will end up at the top of lists in webtools which
would be a pain, they might be better at the back so that they stay near the
new entity.

Regards
Scott

2008/11/24 Hans Bakker <[hidden email]>

> if you have more than one change on the same entity "old" will not work
> anymore..
>
> On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 20:22 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
> > Hi Hans
> > I see a proposition there, but no reasons why.  What problems are you
> having
> > with the way things are currently handled and how does this change
> address
> > those problems?  I'm not objecting as such, I'd just like to understand
> why
> > we need to change.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Scott
> >
> > 2008/11/24 Hans Bakker <[hidden email]>
> >
> > > I have added a proposal for change as a comment to the document at:
> > >
> > > http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBTECH/General+Entity+Overview
> > >
> > > If there are no objections i will incorporate it in the text.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive prices
> > >
> > >
> --
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive prices
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

At the end +1

Jacques

From: "Scott Gray" <[hidden email]>

> Ah ok, so you're talking about when the pk changes and then changes again
> but the entity name remains the same.
> I guess the idea sounds fine to me, my only concern would be how clear the
> numbers are to people not familiar with what they mean.  Also entities
> starting with numbers will end up at the top of lists in webtools which
> would be a pain, they might be better at the back so that they stay near the
> new entity.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> 2008/11/24 Hans Bakker <[hidden email]>
>
>> if you have more than one change on the same entity "old" will not work
>> anymore..
>>
>> On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 20:22 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
>> > Hi Hans
>> > I see a proposition there, but no reasons why.  What problems are you
>> having
>> > with the way things are currently handled and how does this change
>> address
>> > those problems?  I'm not objecting as such, I'd just like to understand
>> why
>> > we need to change.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Scott
>> >
>> > 2008/11/24 Hans Bakker <[hidden email]>
>> >
>> > > I have added a proposal for change as a comment to the document at:
>> > >
>> > > http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBTECH/General+Entity+Overview
>> > >
>> > > If there are no objections i will incorporate it in the text.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive prices
>> > >
>> > >
>> --
>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive prices
>>
>>
>

[Vikas Mayur-3]

+1

On Nov 24, 2008, at 2:41 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> At the end +1
> Jacques
>
> From: "Scott Gray" <[hidden email]>
>> Ah ok, so you're talking about when the pk changes and then changes  
>> again
>> but the entity name remains the same.
>> I guess the idea sounds fine to me, my only concern would be how  
>> clear the
>> numbers are to people not familiar with what they mean.  Also  
>> entities
>> starting with numbers will end up at the top of lists in webtools  
>> which
>> would be a pain, they might be better at the back so that they stay  
>> near the
>> new entity.
>> Regards
>> Scott
>> 2008/11/24 Hans Bakker <[hidden email]>
>>> if you have more than one change on the same entity "old" will not  
>>> work
>>> anymore..
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 20:22 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
>>> > Hi Hans
>>> > I see a proposition there, but no reasons why.  What problems  
>>> are you
>>> having
>>> > with the way things are currently handled and how does this change
>>> address
>>> > those problems?  I'm not objecting as such, I'd just like to  
>>> understand
>>> why
>>> > we need to change.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks
>>> > Scott
>>> >
>>> > 2008/11/24 Hans Bakker <[hidden email]>
>>> >
>>> > > I have added a proposal for change as a comment to the  
>>> document at:
>>> > >
>>> > > http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBTECH/General+Entity+Overview
>>> > >
>>> > > If there are no objections i will incorporate it in the text.
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive prices
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> --
>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive prices
>>>
>>>
>>

[David E Jones-3]

I have a pretty big problem with this actually.

First: changes to pks should be pretty limited, and when done should  
be carefully reviewed. These are a significant difficulty when  
upgrading and should never be done lightly or without looking at other  
alternatives.

Second: when we "deprecate" an entity the new entity should have a  
totally different name, and NEVER be the same as the old entity. That  
means that if the new one were deprecated, it could have "Old" added  
as a prefix without conflicting with the entity that it replaced.

-David


On Nov 24, 2008, at 2:12 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> I have added a proposal for change as a comment to the document at:
>
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBTECH/General+Entity+Overview
>
> If there are no objections i will incorporate it in the text.
>
> --
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive prices
>

[Adrian Crum]

I have a problem with it too.

Anyone who is trying to upgrade from a revision that has more than two
versions of the same table would need to do it incrementally anyway.

-Adrian

David E Jones wrote:

>
> I have a pretty big problem with this actually.
>
> First: changes to pks should be pretty limited, and when done should be
> carefully reviewed. These are a significant difficulty when upgrading
> and should never be done lightly or without looking at other alternatives.
>
> Second: when we "deprecate" an entity the new entity should have a
> totally different name, and NEVER be the same as the old entity. That
> means that if the new one were deprecated, it could have "Old" added as
> a prefix without conflicting with the entity that it replaced.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Nov 24, 2008, at 2:12 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>> I have added a proposal for change as a comment to the document at:
>>
>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBTECH/General+Entity+Overview
>>
>> If there are no objections i will incorporate it in the text.
>>
>> --
>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive prices
>>
>
>

[hans_bakker]

this is exactly what this proposal solves because both instances will
still be there with different version numbers...

never mind....do not have the time to pursue this.


On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 09:54 -0800, Adrian Crum wrote:

> I have a problem with it too.
>
> Anyone who is trying to upgrade from a revision that has more than two
> versions of the same table would need to do it incrementally anyway.
>
> -Adrian
>
> David E Jones wrote:
> >
> > I have a pretty big problem with this actually.
> >
> > First: changes to pks should be pretty limited, and when done should be
> > carefully reviewed. These are a significant difficulty when upgrading
> > and should never be done lightly or without looking at other alternatives.
> >
> > Second: when we "deprecate" an entity the new entity should have a
> > totally different name, and NEVER be the same as the old entity. That
> > means that if the new one were deprecated, it could have "Old" added as
> > a prefix without conflicting with the entity that it replaced.
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> > On Nov 24, 2008, at 2:12 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >
> >> I have added a proposal for change as a comment to the document at:
> >>
> >> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBTECH/General+Entity+Overview
> >>
> >> If there are no objections i will incorporate it in the text.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive prices
> >>
> >
> >

--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive prices