Question about "convertUom" service

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

"convertUom" service, given a uomId (from) and a uomIdTo and an  
amount, tries to convert the amount from uomId to uomIdTo.
In order to do this it searches for the conversion factor by looking  
in the following entities:

1) UomConversion, if no record is found then
2) UomConversionDated

It seems to me that it would be better to reaserch the values in the  
following order:

1) UomConversionDated, if no record is found then
2) UomConversion

The dated version should be more specific, if none is found then the  
no-dated version is searched

What do you think?

Jacopo

[Adrian Crum]

That would make more sense. It would be even better if we used only one
entity instead of two. Conversions that never change would have a null
through date.

-Adrian

Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> "convertUom" service, given a uomId (from) and a uomIdTo and an amount,
> tries to convert the amount from uomId to uomIdTo.
> In order to do this it searches for the conversion factor by looking in
> the following entities:
>
> 1) UomConversion, if no record is found then
> 2) UomConversionDated
>
> It seems to me that it would be better to reaserch the values in the
> following order:
>
> 1) UomConversionDated, if no record is found then
> 2) UomConversion
>
> The dated version should be more specific, if none is found then the
> no-dated version is searched
>
> What do you think?
>
> Jacopo
>

[BJ Freeman]

The only addition would be a note that a default was used if there were
dated but they did not match.

Jacopo Cappellato sent the following on 9/24/2008 9:11 AM:

> "convertUom" service, given a uomId (from) and a uomIdTo and an amount,
> tries to convert the amount from uomId to uomIdTo.
> In order to do this it searches for the conversion factor by looking in
> the following entities:
>
> 1) UomConversion, if no record is found then
> 2) UomConversionDated
>
> It seems to me that it would be better to reaserch the values in the
> following order:
>
> 1) UomConversionDated, if no record is found then
> 2) UomConversion
>
> The dated version should be more specific, if none is found then the
> no-dated version is searched
>
> What do you think?
>
> Jacopo
>

[Bilgin Ibryam]

On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 09:40 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
> That would make more sense. It would be even better if we used only one
> entity instead of two. Conversions that never change would have a null
> through date.
>
> -Adrian

+ 1

Bilgin

[David E Jones]

+1


-David


On Sep 24, 2008, at 10:11, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]
 > wrote:

> "convertUom" service, given a uomId (from) and a uomIdTo and an  
> amount, tries to convert the amount from uomId to uomIdTo.
> In order to do this it searches for the conversion factor by looking  
> in the following entities:
>
> 1) UomConversion, if no record is found then
> 2) UomConversionDated
>
> It seems to me that it would be better to reaserch the values in the  
> following order:
>
> 1) UomConversionDated, if no record is found then
> 2) UomConversion
>
> The dated version should be more specific, if none is found then the  
> no-dated version is searched
>
> What do you think?
>
> Jacopo
>