Proposal to change name of two entities in Portal

[Vikas Mayur-3]

Hi,

I would like to propose change in name of the following entities in  
Portal. This would also result in changing the name of few keys.

PortalPortlet  --> Portlet (since this is just about a portlet)
PortletPortletCategory --> PortletCategoryMember (as in  
ProductCategoryMember)

IMO, they are more logical and clear names. I will open a jira issues  
if no body see any objections.

Vikas

[Divesh Dutta]

+1

Divesh

Vikas Mayur wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I would like to propose change in name of the following entities in
> Portal. This would also result in changing the name of few keys.
>
> PortalPortlet  --> Portlet (since this is just about a portlet)
> PortletPortletCategory --> PortletCategoryMember (as in
> ProductCategoryMember)
>
> IMO, they are more logical and clear names. I will open a jira issues
> if no body see any objections.
>
> Vikas
>

[hans_bakker]

That is fine....however you will write also a migration program and
enter it in the
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBTECH/Revisions+Requiring+Data+Migration
document how to do it?

it is worth the effort?

Regards,
Hans


On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 15:58 +0530, Vikas Mayur wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I would like to propose change in name of the following entities in  
> Portal. This would also result in changing the name of few keys.
>
> PortalPortlet  --> Portlet (since this is just about a portlet)
> PortletPortletCategory --> PortletCategoryMember (as in  
> ProductCategoryMember)
>
> IMO, they are more logical and clear names. I will open a jira issues  
> if no body see any objections.
>
> Vikas
>

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

[Vikas Mayur-3]

Hi Hans,

I know very well the pain behind doing such modifications, like you  
mentioned (thanks). But still I would vote for these changes, at least  
this would make the current entities more logical and easy to  
understand and interpret and yes it is worth the effort in IMHO.

Vikas

On Apr 23, 2009, at 4:04 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> That is fine....however you will write also a migration program and
> enter it in the
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBTECH/Revisions+Requiring+Data+Migration
> document how to do it?
>
> it is worth the effort?
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
>
> On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 15:58 +0530, Vikas Mayur wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to propose change in name of the following entities in
>> Portal. This would also result in changing the name of few keys.
>>
>> PortalPortlet  --> Portlet (since this is just about a portlet)
>> PortletPortletCategory --> PortletCategoryMember (as in
>> ProductCategoryMember)
>>
>> IMO, they are more logical and clear names. I will open a jira issues
>> if no body see any objections.
>>
>> Vikas
>>
> --
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>

[Malin Nicolas]

+1
Nicolas

Divesh Dutta a écrit :

> +1
>
> Divesh
>
> Vikas Mayur wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to propose change in name of the following entities in
>> Portal. This would also result in changing the name of few keys.
>>
>> PortalPortlet  --> Portlet (since this is just about a portlet)
>> PortletPortletCategory --> PortletCategoryMember (as in
>> ProductCategoryMember)
>>
>> IMO, they are more logical and clear names. I will open a jira issues
>> if no body see any objections.
>>
>> Vikas
>>
>
>

--
Nicolas MALIN
Consultant
Tél : [phone]
Site projet : http://www.neogia.org/
-------
Société LibrenBerry
Tél : [phone]
Site : http://www.librenberry.net/

[David E Jones-3]

-1.

In fact, a big huge -1. I don't think those names make it easier to  
understand but rather more difficult, and then they are also not  
grouped so well in the entity data maintenance and other webtools  
pages, etc.

If this was a case where the names were misleading or plain wrong then  
we might consider it. However, changing entities names causes lots of  
problems, and results in a database change that is not backwards-
compatible, which also means people upgrading OFBiz will have to shut  
down their entire system in order to update past such a revision.

So no, I don't think this even comes close to being enough of an  
improvement to be worth it.

-David


On Apr 23, 2009, at 4:28 AM, Vikas Mayur wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I would like to propose change in name of the following entities in  
> Portal. This would also result in changing the name of few keys.
>
> PortalPortlet  --> Portlet (since this is just about a portlet)
> PortletPortletCategory --> PortletCategoryMember (as in  
> ProductCategoryMember)
>
> IMO, they are more logical and clear names. I will open a jira  
> issues if no body see any objections.
>
> Vikas
>

[Andrew Zeneski-2]

+1 to David's -1 :)

I totally agree with these points, to me the name change is very minor  
and not worth the pain which it will cause.

Andrew

On Apr 23, 2009, at 1:39 PM, David E Jones wrote:

>
> -1.
>
> In fact, a big huge -1. I don't think those names make it easier to  
> understand but rather more difficult, and then they are also not  
> grouped so well in the entity data maintenance and other webtools  
> pages, etc.
>
> If this was a case where the names were misleading or plain wrong  
> then we might consider it. However, changing entities names causes  
> lots of problems, and results in a database change that is not  
> backwards-compatible, which also means people upgrading OFBiz will  
> have to shut down their entire system in order to update past such a  
> revision.
>
> So no, I don't think this even comes close to being enough of an  
> improvement to be worth it.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Apr 23, 2009, at 4:28 AM, Vikas Mayur wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to propose change in name of the following entities in  
>> Portal. This would also result in changing the name of few keys.
>>
>> PortalPortlet  --> Portlet (since this is just about a portlet)
>> PortletPortletCategory --> PortletCategoryMember (as in  
>> ProductCategoryMember)
>>
>> IMO, they are more logical and clear names. I will open a jira  
>> issues if no body see any objections.
>>
>> Vikas
>>
>

[Vikas Mayur-3]

On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:09 PM, David E Jones wrote:

>
> -1.
>
> In fact, a big huge -1. I don't think those names make it easier to  
> understand but rather more difficult, and then they are also not  
> grouped so well in the entity data maintenance and other webtools  
> pages, etc.

Are we so concerned about grouping such entities in entity data  
maintenance etc., I think yes, but question is should it be the  
criteria to name any entity for example like PortalPortlet, I think no.
Well this name is not misleading when it comes to looking at the  
structure of this entity and reading the description but certainly it  
is because it is just about portlet information and not a portal.

>
>
> If this was a case where the names were misleading or plain wrong  
> then we might consider it. However, changing entities names causes  
> lots of problems, and results in a database change that is not  
> backwards-compatible, which also means people upgrading OFBiz will  
> have to shut down their entire system in order to update past such a  
> revision.

This make sense and I do agree now with this effort completely but  
disagree with the one above.

>
>
> So no, I don't think this even comes close to being enough of an  
> improvement to be worth it.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Apr 23, 2009, at 4:28 AM, Vikas Mayur wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to propose change in name of the following entities in  
>> Portal. This would also result in changing the name of few keys.
>>
>> PortalPortlet  --> Portlet (since this is just about a portlet)
>> PortletPortletCategory --> PortletCategoryMember (as in  
>> ProductCategoryMember)
>>
>> IMO, they are more logical and clear names. I will open a jira  
>> issues if no body see any objections.
>>
>> Vikas
>>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Apr 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Vikas Mayur wrote:

>
> On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:09 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> -1.
>>
>> In fact, a big huge -1. I don't think those names make it easier to  
>> understand but rather more difficult, and then they are also not  
>> grouped so well in the entity data maintenance and other webtools  
>> pages, etc.
>
> Are we so concerned about grouping such entities in entity data  
> maintenance etc., I think yes, but question is should it be the  
> criteria to name any entity for example like PortalPortlet, I think  
> no.
> Well this name is not misleading when it comes to looking at the  
> structure of this entity and reading the description but certainly  
> it is because it is just about portlet information and not a portal.
>
>

I think it is time to define meta data for entities to make it easier  
to group them etc... we could use the existing "package" attribute  
(that right now is not really used because it contains org.ofbiz for  
all the entities) or (maybe better) define a new one, or new elements.  
It would be also nice to have the ability to specify more than one  
group (for example Product could belong to more than one group like  
"catalog", "order" etc...)
Then in webtools we could add the ability to group/filter data by  
group (aka domain)

Jacopo