Confusing entity names

[Suraj Khurana]

Hello,

There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.

   - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
   contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
   *OrderShipGroup.*
   - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type, it
   just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
   re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
   readablity.

I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self explanatory',
this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
this topic.

Please share your opinions on this.

--

Thanks and Regards,
*Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
*HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
Cell phone: [phone]

[taher]

I think by now some people might think my last name is "Refactoring"
:) But I always welcome improvements. However, such a change needs to
be carefully done and reviewed and we should ensure that all relevant
artifacts are updated accordingly (widgets, services, scripts, etc
...)

+1

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Suraj Khurana
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
>
>    - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
>    contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
>    *OrderShipGroup.*
>    - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type, it
>    just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
>    re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
>    readablity.
>
> I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
> inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self explanatory',
> this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
> this topic.
>
> Please share your opinions on this.
>
> --
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
> Cell phone: [phone]

[Pritam Kute]

+1

Thanks and Regards
--
Pritam Kute

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Taher Alkhateeb <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> I think by now some people might think my last name is "Refactoring"
> :) But I always welcome improvements. However, such a change needs to
> be carefully done and reviewed and we should ensure that all relevant
> artifacts are updated accordingly (widgets, services, scripts, etc
> ...)
>
> +1
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Suraj Khurana
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
> >
> >    - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
> >    contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
> >    *OrderShipGroup.*
> >    - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type,
> it
> >    just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
> >    re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
> >    readablity.
> >
> > I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
> > inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self
> explanatory',
> > this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
> > this topic.
> >
> > Please share your opinions on this.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Thanks and Regards,
> > *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
> > *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
> > Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
> > Cell phone: [phone]
>

[Akash Jain]

+1

Thanks and Regards
--
Akash Jain

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Suraj Khurana <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
>
>    - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
>    contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
>    *OrderShipGroup.*
>    - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type, it
>    just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
>    re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
>    readablity.
>
> I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
> inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self explanatory',
> this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
> this topic.
>
> Please share your opinions on this.
>
> --
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
> Cell phone: [phone]
>

[Arun Patidar-2]

+1 Suraj for the improvement.  Please see my comments inline:


On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Suraj Khurana <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
>
>    - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
>    contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
>    *OrderShipGroup.*
>    - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type, it
>    just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
>    re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
>    readablity.
>
>

 You can rename 'OrderItemShipGroupAssoc'  to 'OrderShipGroupItems' or
'OrderShipGroupMember'.
Renaming it to exisitng entity can be complex and confusing for end user.



--
Thanks & Regards
---
Arun Patidar
Manager, Enterprise Software Development

www.hotwaxsystems.comwww.hotwax.co

> I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
> inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self explanatory',
> this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
> this topic.
>
> Please share your opinions on this.
>
> --
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
> Cell phone: [phone]
>

[Suraj Khurana]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts and inputs.

Here <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10338> is the ticket
created for the same.

--
Thanks and Regards,
*Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
*HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
Cell phone: [phone]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Arun Patidar <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 Suraj for the improvement.  Please see my comments inline:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Suraj Khurana <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
>>
>>    - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
>>    contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
>>    *OrderShipGroup.*
>>    - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type,
>> it
>>    just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
>>    re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
>>    readablity.
>>
>>
>  You can rename 'OrderItemShipGroupAssoc'  to 'OrderShipGroupItems' or 'OrderShipGroupMember'.
> Renaming it to exisitng entity can be complex and confusing for end user.
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards
> ---
> Arun Patidar
> Manager, Enterprise Software Development
>
> www.hotwaxsystems.comwww.hotwax.co
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
>> inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self
>> explanatory',
>> this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
>> this topic.
>>
>> Please share your opinions on this.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Thanks and Regards,
>> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
>> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>> Cell phone: [phone]
>>
>
>

[taher]

Hi Suraj,

May I recommend giving this conversation some room for others to
contribute their opinion before taking an action (even though I agree
with it). A few more days won't hurt to make sure people are okay with
the idea.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Suraj Khurana
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks everyone for your thoughts and inputs.
>
> Here <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10338> is the ticket
> created for the same.
>
> --
> Thanks and Regards,
> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
> Cell phone: [phone]
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Arun Patidar <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> +1 Suraj for the improvement.  Please see my comments inline:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Suraj Khurana <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
>>>
>>>    - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
>>>    contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
>>>    *OrderShipGroup.*
>>>    - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type,
>>> it
>>>    just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
>>>    re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
>>>    readablity.
>>>
>>>
>>  You can rename 'OrderItemShipGroupAssoc'  to 'OrderShipGroupItems' or 'OrderShipGroupMember'.
>> Renaming it to exisitng entity can be complex and confusing for end user.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks & Regards
>> ---
>> Arun Patidar
>> Manager, Enterprise Software Development
>>
>> www.hotwaxsystems.comwww.hotwax.co
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
>>> inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self
>>> explanatory',
>>> this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
>>> this topic.
>>>
>>> Please share your opinions on this.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Thanks and Regards,
>>> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
>>> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
>>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>>> Cell phone: [phone]
>>>
>>
>>

[Devanshu Vyas-2]

+1 Suraj for this improvement.

And my vote is more inclined with the name suggested by Arun here.

Thanks & Regards,
Devanshu Vyas.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Arun Patidar <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 Suraj for the improvement.  Please see my comments inline:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Suraj Khurana <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
> >
> >    - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
> >    contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
> >    *OrderShipGroup.*
> >    - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type,
> it
> >    just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
> >    re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
> >    readablity.
> >
> >
>  You can rename 'OrderItemShipGroupAssoc'  to 'OrderShipGroupItems' or
> 'OrderShipGroupMember'.
> Renaming it to exisitng entity can be complex and confusing for end user.
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards
> ---
> Arun Patidar
> Manager, Enterprise Software Development
>
> www.hotwaxsystems.comwww.hotwax.co
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
> > inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self
> explanatory',
> > this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
> > this topic.
> >
> > Please share your opinions on this.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Thanks and Regards,
> > *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
> > *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
> > Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
> > Cell phone: [phone]
> >
>

[Michael Brohl-3]

Hi Suraj,

thanks for your proposal.

Looking at it in isolation, it seems a good idea to just rename these
entities.

Having the users in mind, I'm not sure if this is worth the need for
data migrations they have to do if they want to stay up-to-date.

I'm not sure where the original names came from. When I'm in the office
tomorrow, I'll consult the Data Model Resource Book. I'll be back then.

Thanks and regards,

Michael


Am 10.04.18 um 13:24 schrieb Suraj Khurana:

> Hello,
>
> There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
>
>     - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
>     contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
>     *OrderShipGroup.*
>     - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type, it
>     just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
>     re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
>     readablity.
>
> I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
> inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self explanatory',
> this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
> this topic.
>
> Please share your opinions on this.
>
> --
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
> Cell phone: [phone]
>

[Rajesh Mallah]

-1

is it really worth taking the risk , renaming generally wrecks havoc!
specially considering OFBiz which have 100's of entities and dozens
named similarly.

however i agree  with the proposer that they are not named properly.

secondly , Is the current state of test suites or integration checks
touch scenarios that use the entities in question.

presence of test suites gives more confidence for undertaking such
changes.

May be once we have these it shall be a better time to fix things that
aint' broken.

regds
mallah.



On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Michael Brohl <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Suraj,
>
> thanks for your proposal.
>
> Looking at it in isolation, it seems a good idea to just rename these
> entities.
>
> Having the users in mind, I'm not sure if this is worth the need for data
> migrations they have to do if they want to stay up-to-date.
>
> I'm not sure where the original names came from. When I'm in the office
> tomorrow, I'll consult the Data Model Resource Book. I'll be back then.
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Michael
>
>
> Am 10.04.18 um 13:24 schrieb Suraj Khurana:
>
> Hello,
>>
>> There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
>>
>>     - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
>>     contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
>>     *OrderShipGroup.*
>>     - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type,
>> it
>>     just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
>>     re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
>>     readablity.
>>
>> I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
>> inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self
>> explanatory',
>> this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
>> this topic.
>>
>> Please share your opinions on this.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Thanks and Regards,
>> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
>> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>> Cell phone: [phone]
>>
>>
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

I agree (Premature Optimisation...), but let's see what others have to say...

Jacques


Le 12/04/2018 à 15:47, Rajesh Mallah a écrit :

> -1
>
> is it really worth taking the risk , renaming generally wrecks havoc!
> specially considering OFBiz which have 100's of entities and dozens
> named similarly.
>
> however i agree  with the proposer that they are not named properly.
>
> secondly , Is the current state of test suites or integration checks
> touch scenarios that use the entities in question.
>
> presence of test suites gives more confidence for undertaking such
> changes.
>
> May be once we have these it shall be a better time to fix things that
> aint' broken.
>
> regds
> mallah.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Michael Brohl <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Suraj,
>>
>> thanks for your proposal.
>>
>> Looking at it in isolation, it seems a good idea to just rename these
>> entities.
>>
>> Having the users in mind, I'm not sure if this is worth the need for data
>> migrations they have to do if they want to stay up-to-date.
>>
>> I'm not sure where the original names came from. When I'm in the office
>> tomorrow, I'll consult the Data Model Resource Book. I'll be back then.
>>
>> Thanks and regards,
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> Am 10.04.18 um 13:24 schrieb Suraj Khurana:
>>
>> Hello,
>>> There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
>>>
>>>      - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
>>>      contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
>>>      *OrderShipGroup.*
>>>      - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type,
>>> it
>>>      just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
>>>      re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
>>>      readablity.
>>>
>>> I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
>>> inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self
>>> explanatory',
>>> this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
>>> this topic.
>>>
>>> Please share your opinions on this.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Thanks and Regards,
>>> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
>>> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
>>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>>> Cell phone: [phone]
>>>
>>>
>>

[taher]

Premature optimization is something totally different :) But I
understand your point.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Jacques Le Roux
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I agree (Premature Optimisation...), but let's see what others have to
> say...
>
> Jacques
>
>
>
> Le 12/04/2018 à 15:47, Rajesh Mallah a écrit :
>>
>> -1
>>
>> is it really worth taking the risk , renaming generally wrecks havoc!
>> specially considering OFBiz which have 100's of entities and dozens
>> named similarly.
>>
>> however i agree  with the proposer that they are not named properly.
>>
>> secondly , Is the current state of test suites or integration checks
>> touch scenarios that use the entities in question.
>>
>> presence of test suites gives more confidence for undertaking such
>> changes.
>>
>> May be once we have these it shall be a better time to fix things that
>> aint' broken.
>>
>> regds
>> mallah.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Michael Brohl <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Suraj,
>>>
>>> thanks for your proposal.
>>>
>>> Looking at it in isolation, it seems a good idea to just rename these
>>> entities.
>>>
>>> Having the users in mind, I'm not sure if this is worth the need for data
>>> migrations they have to do if they want to stay up-to-date.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure where the original names came from. When I'm in the office
>>> tomorrow, I'll consult the Data Model Resource Book. I'll be back then.
>>>
>>> Thanks and regards,
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 10.04.18 um 13:24 schrieb Suraj Khurana:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
>>>>
>>>>      - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
>>>>      contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
>>>>      *OrderShipGroup.*
>>>>      - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association
>>>> type,
>>>> it
>>>>      just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could
>>>> be
>>>>      re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
>>>>      readablity.
>>>>
>>>> I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
>>>> inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self
>>>> explanatory',
>>>> this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
>>>> this topic.
>>>>
>>>> Please share your opinions on this.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and Regards,
>>>> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
>>>> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
>>>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>>>> Cell phone: [phone]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>

[Swapnil Mane]

+1

We maintain the document for users to upgrade the revision.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Revisions+Requiring+Data+Migration+-+upgrade+ofbiz
So, IMO we can proceed with this change.


- Best Regards,
Swapnil M Mane
www.hotwaxsystems.com



On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Suraj Khurana <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
>
>    - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
>    contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
>    *OrderShipGroup.*
>    - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type, it
>    just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
>    re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
>    readablity.
>
> I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
> inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self explanatory',
> this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
> this topic.
>
> Please share your opinions on this.
>
> --
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
> Cell phone: [phone]
>

[Vaibhav Jain]

+1 Suraj

Vaibhav Jain
Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
HotWax Systems
m: 782-834-1900 e: [hidden email]
<[hidden email]>

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Swapnil Mane <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1
>
> We maintain the document for users to upgrade the revision.
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/
> Revisions+Requiring+Data+Migration+-+upgrade+ofbiz
> So, IMO we can proceed with this change.
>
>
> - Best Regards,
> Swapnil M Mane
> www.hotwaxsystems.com
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Suraj Khurana <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
> >
> >    - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
> >    contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
> >    *OrderShipGroup.*
> >    - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type,
> it
> >    just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
> >    re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
> >    readablity.
> >
> > I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
> > inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self
> explanatory',
> > this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
> > this topic.
> >
> > Please share your opinions on this.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Thanks and Regards,
> > *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
> > *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
> > Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
> > Cell phone: [phone]
> >
>

[Gil Portenseigne]

Hi All,

Got the same feeling as Michael...

Thanks,

Gil


On 12/04/2018 14:48, Michael Brohl wrote:

> Hi Suraj,
>
> thanks for your proposal.
>
> Looking at it in isolation, it seems a good idea to just rename these
> entities.
>
> Having the users in mind, I'm not sure if this is worth the need for
> data migrations they have to do if they want to stay up-to-date.
>
> I'm not sure where the original names came from. When I'm in the office
> tomorrow, I'll consult the Data Model Resource Book. I'll be back then.
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Michael
>
>
> Am 10.04.18 um 13:24 schrieb Suraj Khurana:
>> Hello,
>>
>> There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
>>
>>     - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
>>     contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
>>     *OrderShipGroup.*
>>     - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association
>> type, it
>>     just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
>>     re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
>>     readablity.
>>
>> I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
>> inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self
>> explanatory',
>> this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
>> this topic.
>>
>> Please share your opinions on this.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Thanks and Regards,
>> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
>> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>> Cell phone: [phone]
>>
>
>

[Nicolas Malin-2]

Hi

On 10/04/2018 13:24, Suraj Khurana wrote:

> Hello,
>
> There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
>
>     - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
>     contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
>     *OrderShipGroup.*
>     - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type, it
>     just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
>     re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
>     readablity.
>
> I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
> inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self explanatory',
> this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
> this topic.
>
> Please share your opinions on this.

It's big modification with potential side-effect.
I suggest to move carefully and migrate entities one by one and not all
in one :)

For the renaming OrderItemShipGroupto OrderShipGroupit's ok but I'm
against OrderItemShipGroupAssoc to OrderItemShipGroup. As pragmatic
OrderItemShipGroupAssoc isn't perfect like you spotted but it's easily
understandable.

Nicolas
>
> --
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
> Cell phone: [phone]
>

[Suraj Khurana]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts.

One more point is we also manage Data Migration By release document so it
will help existing uses. Such as https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
uence/display/OFBIZ/Data+Migration+by+releases
<https://www.google.com/url?q=https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Data%2BMigration%2Bby%2Breleases&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1523684384066000&usg=AFQjCNHrGuEkvs9NdHkf_MUX3tPFJfp2Wg>
Handling of deprecated entities is also properly defined at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/General+Entity+Overview,
we can easily follow these steps.

We will change entity name and its occurrence everywhere in code base,
provide a data migration service which will be helpful for existing uses.
Further on, thanks to Arun's suggestion, there will not be any confusion
related to entity name as well.

@Nicolas, Arun also suggested two names to avoid confusion, may be anyone
of them makes more sense to you.

--
Thanks and Regards,
*Suraj Khurana* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
HotWax Commerce  by  HotWax Systems
Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
Cell phone: [phone]

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Nicolas Malin <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi
>
> On 10/04/2018 13:24, Suraj Khurana wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
>>
>>     - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
>>     contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
>>     *OrderShipGroup.*
>>     - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type,
>> it
>>     just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
>>     re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
>>     readablity.
>>
>> I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
>> inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self
>> explanatory',
>> this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
>> this topic.
>>
>> Please share your opinions on this.
>>
> It's big modification with potential side-effect.
> I suggest to move carefully and migrate entities one by one and not all in
> one :)
>
> For the renaming OrderItemShipGroupto OrderShipGroupit's ok but I'm
> against OrderItemShipGroupAssoc to OrderItemShipGroup. As pragmatic
> OrderItemShipGroupAssoc isn't perfect like you spotted but it's easily
> understandable.
>
> Nicolas
>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Thanks and Regards,
>> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
>> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>> Cell phone: [phone]
>>
>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi Suraj,

Did you get a chance to check if these entities are covered by tests somehow?

Thanks

Jacques


Le 13/04/2018 à 10:09, Suraj Khurana a écrit :

> Thanks everyone for your thoughts.
>
> One more point is we also manage Data Migration By release document so it
> will help existing uses. Such as https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> uence/display/OFBIZ/Data+Migration+by+releases
> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Data%2BMigration%2Bby%2Breleases&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1523684384066000&usg=AFQjCNHrGuEkvs9NdHkf_MUX3tPFJfp2Wg>
> Handling of deprecated entities is also properly defined at
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/General+Entity+Overview,
> we can easily follow these steps.
>
> We will change entity name and its occurrence everywhere in code base,
> provide a data migration service which will be helpful for existing uses.
> Further on, thanks to Arun's suggestion, there will not be any confusion
> related to entity name as well.
>
> @Nicolas, Arun also suggested two names to avoid confusion, may be anyone
> of them makes more sense to you.
>
> --
> Thanks and Regards,
> *Suraj Khurana* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
> HotWax Commerce  by  HotWax Systems
> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
> Cell phone: [phone]
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Nicolas Malin <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> On 10/04/2018 13:24, Suraj Khurana wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
>>>
>>>      - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
>>>      contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
>>>      *OrderShipGroup.*
>>>      - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type,
>>> it
>>>      just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
>>>      re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
>>>      readablity.
>>>
>>> I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
>>> inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self
>>> explanatory',
>>> this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
>>> this topic.
>>>
>>> Please share your opinions on this.
>>>
>> It's big modification with potential side-effect.
>> I suggest to move carefully and migrate entities one by one and not all in
>> one :)
>>
>> For the renaming OrderItemShipGroupto OrderShipGroupit's ok but I'm
>> against OrderItemShipGroupAssoc to OrderItemShipGroup. As pragmatic
>> OrderItemShipGroupAssoc isn't perfect like you spotted but it's easily
>> understandable.
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Thanks and Regards,
>>> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
>>> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
>>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>>> Cell phone: [phone]
>>>
>>>

[Michael Brohl-3]

Suraj,

I still do not see much value in this change, compared to the effort
needed for development and testing as well as the migration the users
have to do.

Please consider to not do this change.

Thanks,

Michael


Am 13.04.18 um 10:09 schrieb Suraj Khurana:

> Thanks everyone for your thoughts.
>
> One more point is we also manage Data Migration By release document so it
> will help existing uses. Such as https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> uence/display/OFBIZ/Data+Migration+by+releases
> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Data%2BMigration%2Bby%2Breleases&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1523684384066000&usg=AFQjCNHrGuEkvs9NdHkf_MUX3tPFJfp2Wg>
> Handling of deprecated entities is also properly defined at
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/General+Entity+Overview,
> we can easily follow these steps.
>
> We will change entity name and its occurrence everywhere in code base,
> provide a data migration service which will be helpful for existing uses.
> Further on, thanks to Arun's suggestion, there will not be any confusion
> related to entity name as well.
>
> @Nicolas, Arun also suggested two names to avoid confusion, may be anyone
> of them makes more sense to you.
>
> --
> Thanks and Regards,
> *Suraj Khurana* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
> HotWax Commerce  by  HotWax Systems
> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
> Cell phone: [phone]
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Nicolas Malin <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> On 10/04/2018 13:24, Suraj Khurana wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
>>>
>>>      - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
>>>      contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
>>>      *OrderShipGroup.*
>>>      - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type,
>>> it
>>>      just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
>>>      re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
>>>      readablity.
>>>
>>> I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
>>> inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self
>>> explanatory',
>>> this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
>>> this topic.
>>>
>>> Please share your opinions on this.
>>>
>> It's big modification with potential side-effect.
>> I suggest to move carefully and migrate entities one by one and not all in
>> one :)
>>
>> For the renaming OrderItemShipGroupto OrderShipGroupit's ok but I'm
>> against OrderItemShipGroupAssoc to OrderItemShipGroup. As pragmatic
>> OrderItemShipGroupAssoc isn't perfect like you spotted but it's easily
>> understandable.
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Thanks and Regards,
>>> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
>>> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
>>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>>> Cell phone: [phone]
>>>
>>>

[taher]

Hi Everyone,

Thinking some more about the concerns from multiple people in this thread
like Michael, Rajesh, Gil and others I have a different suggestion.

Why not make a sweeping review of the full domain model, and then decide on
one comprehensive change, with even a migration script that we can offer to
users. That would be easier than randomly changing a few entities every
once in a while.

The domain model seems sensitive to many users and I understand that
because everything builds on top of it. I heard enough objections to
recommend postponing this task and coming up with something better as
suggested above.

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018, 9:56 AM Michael Brohl <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Suraj,
>
> I still do not see much value in this change, compared to the effort
> needed for development and testing as well as the migration the users
> have to do.
>
> Please consider to not do this change.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael
>
>
> Am 13.04.18 um 10:09 schrieb Suraj Khurana:
> > Thanks everyone for your thoughts.
> >
> > One more point is we also manage Data Migration By release document so it
> > will help existing uses. Such as https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> > uence/display/OFBIZ/Data+Migration+by+releases
> > <
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Data%2BMigration%2Bby%2Breleases&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1523684384066000&usg=AFQjCNHrGuEkvs9NdHkf_MUX3tPFJfp2Wg
> >
> > Handling of deprecated entities is also properly defined at
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/General+Entity+Overview,
> > we can easily follow these steps.
> >
> > We will change entity name and its occurrence everywhere in code base,
> > provide a data migration service which will be helpful for existing uses.
> > Further on, thanks to Arun's suggestion, there will not be any confusion
> > related to entity name as well.
> >
> > @Nicolas, Arun also suggested two names to avoid confusion, may be anyone
> > of them makes more sense to you.
> >
> > --
> > Thanks and Regards,
> > *Suraj Khurana* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
> > HotWax Commerce  by  HotWax Systems
> > Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
> > Cell phone: [phone]
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Nicolas Malin <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> On 10/04/2018 13:24, Suraj Khurana wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
> >>>
> >>>      - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
> >>>      contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
> >>>      *OrderShipGroup.*
> >>>      - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association
> type,
> >>> it
> >>>      just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this
> could be
> >>>      re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
> >>>      readablity.
> >>>
> >>> I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
> >>> inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self
> >>> explanatory',
> >>> this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
> >>> this topic.
> >>>
> >>> Please share your opinions on this.
> >>>
> >> It's big modification with potential side-effect.
> >> I suggest to move carefully and migrate entities one by one and not all
> in
> >> one :)
> >>
> >> For the renaming OrderItemShipGroupto OrderShipGroupit's ok but I'm
> >> against OrderItemShipGroupAssoc to OrderItemShipGroup. As pragmatic
> >> OrderItemShipGroupAssoc isn't perfect like you spotted but it's easily
> >> understandable.
> >>
> >> Nicolas
> >>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Thanks and Regards,
> >>> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
> >>> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
> >>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
> >>> Cell phone: [phone]
> >>>
> >>>
>
>
>