Keep deleteProductionRunRoutingTask?

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi,

Please give your opinion on OFBIZ-9568 before I continue on OFBIZ-9185

Thanks

Jacques

[Vaibhav Jain]

Hello Jacques,

Just for easy reference

>>Please give your opinion on OFBIZ-9568
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-9568>before I continue on
OFBIZ-9185 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-9185>

Thanks & Regards

Vaibhav Jain
Hotwax Systems,
[hidden email]

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Please give your opinion on OFBIZ-9568 before I continue on OFBIZ-9185
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
>

[Nicolas Malin-2]

Hello Jacques,

It's a good example why I explained that delete is interesting in some
cases.

We implemented a process with template workeffort where an operator
create a production run from the templating and delete some task that is
not needed before start. In this context, I have no reason to keep these
workeffort on the database.

I'm in favor to keep these services as simple as possible and in
coherence with the create service with information that the delete
service doesn't manage all foreign key and we need prepare the delete
before. For all other case, expire will own friend :)

Nicolas

Le 10/08/2017 à 11:56, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Please give your opinion on OFBIZ-9568 before I continue on OFBIZ-9185
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi Nicolas, All,

Nicolas: are you speaking about deleteProductionRunRoutingTask (OFBIZ-9568), deleteWorkEffort (OFBIZ-9185) or both ?

I think you answered only about deleteWorkEffort and then I agree.

I was also reluctant to remove it. But then we need to define what would be it's minimal implementation.
Because as Deepak said, when you want to delete a workeffort with relations with other entities (hence FKs); then you need to delete those other
entities before.
And in some case it can be quite hard (I try to generalise from this case).

I wonder if a new simpler service like deleteSimpleWorkeffort would not be appropriate. A simple workEffort would not have any relations with any
entities, else the call would be rejected by this new service.
Because generalising seems hard, even more when considering all entities, like eg OrderHeader
see https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBENDUSER/How+to+delete+tuples+added+to+test+a+setup and also related thread https://s.apache.org/DCiI

This time I want to get to some action :D

Jacques

Le 11/08/2017 à 11:20, Nicolas Malin a écrit :

> Hello Jacques,
>
> It's a good example why I explained that delete is interesting in some cases.
>
> We implemented a process with template workeffort where an operator create a production run from the templating and delete some task that is not
> needed before start. In this context, I have no reason to keep these workeffort on the database.
>
> I'm in favor to keep these services as simple as possible and in coherence with the create service with information that the delete service doesn't
> manage all foreign key and we need prepare the delete before. For all other case, expire will own friend :)
>
> Nicolas
>
> Le 10/08/2017 à 11:56, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please give your opinion on OFBIZ-9568 before I continue on OFBIZ-9185
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Also for beginners we have this advice in FAQ...

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/FAQ+-+Tips+-+Tricks+-+Cookbook+-+HowTo#FAQ-Tips-Tricks-Cookbook-HowTo-obsolete

Jacques


Le 11/08/2017 à 17:21, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

> Hi Nicolas, All,
>
> Nicolas: are you speaking about deleteProductionRunRoutingTask (OFBIZ-9568), deleteWorkEffort (OFBIZ-9185) or both ?
>
> I think you answered only about deleteWorkEffort and then I agree.
>
> I was also reluctant to remove it. But then we need to define what would be it's minimal implementation.
> Because as Deepak said, when you want to delete a workeffort with relations with other entities (hence FKs); then you need to delete those other
> entities before.
> And in some case it can be quite hard (I try to generalise from this case).
>
> I wonder if a new simpler service like deleteSimpleWorkeffort would not be appropriate. A simple workEffort would not have any relations with any
> entities, else the call would be rejected by this new service.
> Because generalising seems hard, even more when considering all entities, like eg OrderHeader
> see https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBENDUSER/How+to+delete+tuples+added+to+test+a+setup and also related thread https://s.apache.org/DCiI
>
> This time I want to get to some action :D
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 11/08/2017 à 11:20, Nicolas Malin a écrit :
>> Hello Jacques,
>>
>> It's a good example why I explained that delete is interesting in some cases.
>>
>> We implemented a process with template workeffort where an operator create a production run from the templating and delete some task that is not
>> needed before start. In this context, I have no reason to keep these workeffort on the database.
>>
>> I'm in favor to keep these services as simple as possible and in coherence with the create service with information that the delete service doesn't
>> manage all foreign key and we need prepare the delete before. For all other case, expire will own friend :)
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>> Le 10/08/2017 à 11:56, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Please give your opinion on OFBIZ-9568 before I continue on OFBIZ-9185
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Gil Portenseigne]

Hi Jacques,

In my opinion when I read deleteWorkEffort i'm expecting an entity-auto
service, that will remove my workEffort entry from database.

In this case it's removing the workEffort and all related entity, so i
propose to rename the service to removeWorkEffortAndRelated.

This service is to be used when i really don't care about related data.

Then we could replace deleteProductionRunRoutingTask with
removeWorkEffortAndRelated service...

The question remains, should we still define a deleteWorkEffort
entity-auto service ? I'm not sure that will be useful, but that's not
costly to have one defined...

Gil



On 11/08/2017 17:21, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Hi Nicolas, All,
>
> Nicolas: are you speaking about deleteProductionRunRoutingTask
> (OFBIZ-9568), deleteWorkEffort (OFBIZ-9185) or both ?
>
> I think you answered only about deleteWorkEffort and then I agree.
>
> I was also reluctant to remove it. But then we need to define what
> would be it's minimal implementation.
> Because as Deepak said, when you want to delete a workeffort with
> relations with other entities (hence FKs); then you need to delete
> those other entities before.
> And in some case it can be quite hard (I try to generalise from this
> case).
>
> I wonder if a new simpler service like deleteSimpleWorkeffort would
> not be appropriate. A simple workEffort would not have any relations
> with any entities, else the call would be rejected by this new service.
> Because generalising seems hard, even more when considering all
> entities, like eg OrderHeader
> see
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBENDUSER/How+to+delete+tuples+added+to+test+a+setup 
> and also related thread https://s.apache.org/DCiI
>
> This time I want to get to some action :D
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 11/08/2017 à 11:20, Nicolas Malin a écrit :
>> Hello Jacques,
>>
>> It's a good example why I explained that delete is interesting in
>> some cases.
>>
>> We implemented a process with template workeffort where an operator
>> create a production run from the templating and delete some task that
>> is not needed before start. In this context, I have no reason to keep
>> these workeffort on the database.
>>
>> I'm in favor to keep these services as simple as possible and in
>> coherence with the create service with information that the delete
>> service doesn't manage all foreign key and we need prepare the delete
>> before. For all other case, expire will own friend :)
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>> Le 10/08/2017 à 11:56, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Please give your opinion on OFBIZ-9568 before I continue on OFBIZ-9185
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks Gil,

Inline


Le 14/08/2017 à 15:50, gil portenseigne a écrit :
> Hi Jacques,
>
> In my opinion when I read deleteWorkEffort i'm expecting an entity-auto service, that will remove my workEffort entry from database.
+1

>
> In this case it's removing the workEffort and all related entity, so i propose to rename the service to removeWorkEffortAndRelated.
+1

>
> This service is to be used when i really don't care about related data.
deleteWorkEffort indeed, misnamed

>
> Then we could replace deleteProductionRunRoutingTask with removeWorkEffortAndRelated service...

Makes sense

>
> The question remains, should we still define a deleteWorkEffort entity-auto service ? I'm not sure that will be useful, but that's not costly to
> have one defined...
It would fail most of the time which is misleading.
But I understand Nicolas's POV and I guess we need to rather test at service start if FKs exist and return a clear  error message when they exist .

Jacques

>
> Gil
>
>
>
> On 11/08/2017 17:21, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> Hi Nicolas, All,
>>
>> Nicolas: are you speaking about deleteProductionRunRoutingTask (OFBIZ-9568), deleteWorkEffort (OFBIZ-9185) or both ?
>>
>> I think you answered only about deleteWorkEffort and then I agree.
>>
>> I was also reluctant to remove it. But then we need to define what would be it's minimal implementation.
>> Because as Deepak said, when you want to delete a workeffort with relations with other entities (hence FKs); then you need to delete those other
>> entities before.
>> And in some case it can be quite hard (I try to generalise from this case).
>>
>> I wonder if a new simpler service like deleteSimpleWorkeffort would not be appropriate. A simple workEffort would not have any relations with any
>> entities, else the call would be rejected by this new service.
>> Because generalising seems hard, even more when considering all entities, like eg OrderHeader
>> see https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBENDUSER/How+to+delete+tuples+added+to+test+a+setup and also related thread
>> https://s.apache.org/DCiI
>>
>> This time I want to get to some action :D
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> Le 11/08/2017 à 11:20, Nicolas Malin a écrit :
>>> Hello Jacques,
>>>
>>> It's a good example why I explained that delete is interesting in some cases.
>>>
>>> We implemented a process with template workeffort where an operator create a production run from the templating and delete some task that is not
>>> needed before start. In this context, I have no reason to keep these workeffort on the database.
>>>
>>> I'm in favor to keep these services as simple as possible and in coherence with the create service with information that the delete service
>>> doesn't manage all foreign key and we need prepare the delete before. For all other case, expire will own friend :)
>>>
>>> Nicolas
>>>
>>> Le 10/08/2017 à 11:56, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Please give your opinion on OFBIZ-9568 before I continue on OFBIZ-9185
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

[Paul Foxworthy]

Hi Gil,

Jacques counted 157 services with names starting with "remove" and 538
starting with "delete" . OFBiz is inconsistent here, but "delete" is more
commonly used. Why make it any worse by adding another "remove"?

Thanks

Paul Foxworthy

On 14 August 2017 at 23:50, gil portenseigne <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Jacques,
>
> In my opinion when I read deleteWorkEffort i'm expecting an entity-auto
> service, that will remove my workEffort entry from database.
>
> In this case it's removing the workEffort and all related entity, so i
> propose to rename the service to removeWorkEffortAndRelated.
>
> This service is to be used when i really don't care about related data.
>
> Then we could replace deleteProductionRunRoutingTask with
> removeWorkEffortAndRelated service...
>
> The question remains, should we still define a deleteWorkEffort
> entity-auto service ? I'm not sure that will be useful, but that's not
> costly to have one defined...
>
> Gil
>
>
>
>
> On 11/08/2017 17:21, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> Hi Nicolas, All,
>>
>> Nicolas: are you speaking about deleteProductionRunRoutingTask
>> (OFBIZ-9568), deleteWorkEffort (OFBIZ-9185) or both ?
>>
>> I think you answered only about deleteWorkEffort and then I agree.
>>
>> I was also reluctant to remove it. But then we need to define what would
>> be it's minimal implementation.
>> Because as Deepak said, when you want to delete a workeffort with
>> relations with other entities (hence FKs); then you need to delete those
>> other entities before.
>> And in some case it can be quite hard (I try to generalise from this
>> case).
>>
>> I wonder if a new simpler service like deleteSimpleWorkeffort would not
>> be appropriate. A simple workEffort would not have any relations with any
>> entities, else the call would be rejected by this new service.
>> Because generalising seems hard, even more when considering all entities,
>> like eg OrderHeader
>> see https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBENDUSER/How+
>> to+delete+tuples+added+to+test+a+setup and also related thread
>> https://s.apache.org/DCiI
>>
>> This time I want to get to some action :D
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> Le 11/08/2017 à 11:20, Nicolas Malin a écrit :
>>
>>> Hello Jacques,
>>>
>>> It's a good example why I explained that delete is interesting in some
>>> cases.
>>>
>>> We implemented a process with template workeffort where an operator
>>> create a production run from the templating and delete some task that is
>>> not needed before start. In this context, I have no reason to keep these
>>> workeffort on the database.
>>>
>>> I'm in favor to keep these services as simple as possible and in
>>> coherence with the create service with information that the delete service
>>> doesn't manage all foreign key and we need prepare the delete before. For
>>> all other case, expire will own friend :)
>>>
>>> Nicolas
>>>
>>> Le 10/08/2017 à 11:56, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Please give your opinion on OFBIZ-9568 before I continue on OFBIZ-9185
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

--
Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd
PO Box 2773
Cheltenham Vic 3192
Australia

Phone: [phone]
Web: http://www.coherentsoftware.com.au/
Email: [hidden email]

[Gil Portenseigne]

Hi Paul,

You are right, deleteWorkEffortAndRelated will suit perfectly :)

Thanks for your feedback

Gil


On 24/08/2017 05:38, Paul Foxworthy wrote:

> Hi Gil,
>
> Jacques counted 157 services with names starting with "remove" and 538
> starting with "delete" . OFBiz is inconsistent here, but "delete" is more
> commonly used. Why make it any worse by adding another "remove"?
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul Foxworthy
>
> On 14 August 2017 at 23:50, gil portenseigne <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jacques,
>>
>> In my opinion when I read deleteWorkEffort i'm expecting an entity-auto
>> service, that will remove my workEffort entry from database.
>>
>> In this case it's removing the workEffort and all related entity, so i
>> propose to rename the service to removeWorkEffortAndRelated.
>>
>> This service is to be used when i really don't care about related data.
>>
>> Then we could replace deleteProductionRunRoutingTask with
>> removeWorkEffortAndRelated service...
>>
>> The question remains, should we still define a deleteWorkEffort
>> entity-auto service ? I'm not sure that will be useful, but that's not
>> costly to have one defined...
>>
>> Gil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/08/2017 17:21, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Nicolas, All,
>>>
>>> Nicolas: are you speaking about deleteProductionRunRoutingTask
>>> (OFBIZ-9568), deleteWorkEffort (OFBIZ-9185) or both ?
>>>
>>> I think you answered only about deleteWorkEffort and then I agree.
>>>
>>> I was also reluctant to remove it. But then we need to define what would
>>> be it's minimal implementation.
>>> Because as Deepak said, when you want to delete a workeffort with
>>> relations with other entities (hence FKs); then you need to delete those
>>> other entities before.
>>> And in some case it can be quite hard (I try to generalise from this
>>> case).
>>>
>>> I wonder if a new simpler service like deleteSimpleWorkeffort would not
>>> be appropriate. A simple workEffort would not have any relations with any
>>> entities, else the call would be rejected by this new service.
>>> Because generalising seems hard, even more when considering all entities,
>>> like eg OrderHeader
>>> see https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBENDUSER/How+
>>> to+delete+tuples+added+to+test+a+setup and also related thread
>>> https://s.apache.org/DCiI
>>>
>>> This time I want to get to some action :D
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> Le 11/08/2017 à 11:20, Nicolas Malin a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Hello Jacques,
>>>>
>>>> It's a good example why I explained that delete is interesting in some
>>>> cases.
>>>>
>>>> We implemented a process with template workeffort where an operator
>>>> create a production run from the templating and delete some task that is
>>>> not needed before start. In this context, I have no reason to keep these
>>>> workeffort on the database.
>>>>
>>>> I'm in favor to keep these services as simple as possible and in
>>>> coherence with the create service with information that the delete service
>>>> doesn't manage all foreign key and we need prepare the delete before. For
>>>> all other case, expire will own friend :)
>>>>
>>>> Nicolas
>>>>
>>>> Le 10/08/2017 à 11:56, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please give your opinion on OFBIZ-9568 before I continue on OFBIZ-9185
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks Paul, Gil,

If it was not a so big move, we could even rename all remove into delete, but forget it ;)

Jacques


Le 24/08/2017 à 09:08, gil portenseigne a écrit :

> Hi Paul,
>
> You are right, deleteWorkEffortAndRelated will suit perfectly :)
>
> Thanks for your feedback
>
> Gil
>
>
> On 24/08/2017 05:38, Paul Foxworthy wrote:
>> Hi Gil,
>>
>> Jacques counted 157 services with names starting with "remove" and 538
>> starting with "delete" . OFBiz is inconsistent here, but "delete" is more
>> commonly used. Why make it any worse by adding another "remove"?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Paul Foxworthy
>>
>> On 14 August 2017 at 23:50, gil portenseigne <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jacques,
>>>
>>> In my opinion when I read deleteWorkEffort i'm expecting an entity-auto
>>> service, that will remove my workEffort entry from database.
>>>
>>> In this case it's removing the workEffort and all related entity, so i
>>> propose to rename the service to removeWorkEffortAndRelated.
>>>
>>> This service is to be used when i really don't care about related data.
>>>
>>> Then we could replace deleteProductionRunRoutingTask with
>>> removeWorkEffortAndRelated service...
>>>
>>> The question remains, should we still define a deleteWorkEffort
>>> entity-auto service ? I'm not sure that will be useful, but that's not
>>> costly to have one defined...
>>>
>>> Gil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/08/2017 17:21, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Nicolas, All,
>>>>
>>>> Nicolas: are you speaking about deleteProductionRunRoutingTask
>>>> (OFBIZ-9568), deleteWorkEffort (OFBIZ-9185) or both ?
>>>>
>>>> I think you answered only about deleteWorkEffort and then I agree.
>>>>
>>>> I was also reluctant to remove it. But then we need to define what would
>>>> be it's minimal implementation.
>>>> Because as Deepak said, when you want to delete a workeffort with
>>>> relations with other entities (hence FKs); then you need to delete those
>>>> other entities before.
>>>> And in some case it can be quite hard (I try to generalise from this
>>>> case).
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if a new simpler service like deleteSimpleWorkeffort would not
>>>> be appropriate. A simple workEffort would not have any relations with any
>>>> entities, else the call would be rejected by this new service.
>>>> Because generalising seems hard, even more when considering all entities,
>>>> like eg OrderHeader
>>>> see https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBENDUSER/How+
>>>> to+delete+tuples+added+to+test+a+setup and also related thread
>>>> https://s.apache.org/DCiI
>>>>
>>>> This time I want to get to some action :D
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> Le 11/08/2017 à 11:20, Nicolas Malin a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Hello Jacques,
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a good example why I explained that delete is interesting in some
>>>>> cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> We implemented a process with template workeffort where an operator
>>>>> create a production run from the templating and delete some task that is
>>>>> not needed before start. In this context, I have no reason to keep these
>>>>> workeffort on the database.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm in favor to keep these services as simple as possible and in
>>>>> coherence with the create service with information that the delete service
>>>>> doesn't manage all foreign key and we need prepare the delete before. For
>>>>> all other case, expire will own friend :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Nicolas
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 10/08/2017 à 11:56, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please give your opinion on OFBIZ-9568 before I continue on OFBIZ-9185
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>
>