Re: [jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-8230) Disentangle platform specific entity engine schemas

[Michael Brohl-3]

Hi everyone,

please have a look at the issue mentioned below and express your
opionion if we should remove the different schema configurations from
the main entityengine.xml or if we should keep them.

Thanks,

Michael


Am 07.01.18 um 11:23 schrieb Pierre Smits (JIRA):

>      [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8230?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16315152#comment-16315152 ]
>
> Pierre Smits commented on OFBIZ-8230:
> -------------------------------------
>
> Closing an improvement ticket unilaterally, while you're not the assignee, is not in line with the Apache Way.
> This would - at least - require a consensus of the community (or at least 3 binding votes, as this is a procedural matter).
>
>
>
>> Disentangle platform specific entity engine schemas
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>
>>                  Key: OFBIZ-8230
>>                  URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8230
>>              Project: OFBiz
>>           Issue Type: Improvement
>>           Components: framework
>>     Affects Versions: Trunk
>>             Reporter: Pierre Smits
>>             Assignee: Pierre Smits
>>             Priority: Minor
>>               Labels: database, devops, refactoring
>>          Attachments: OFBIZ-8230-entityengine-postgresql.xml.patch, OFBIZ-8230-entityengine.xml.patch
>>
>>
>> Disentangle entity engine schemas for specific rdbms platforms from entityengine.xml
>
>
> --
> This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
> (v6.4.14#64029)

[Jacques Le Roux]

Michael,

We crossed on wire. I put a comment just after yours in the Jira it's not an answer to your questions but my thoughts at large.

My answer to your question is: we should keep them of course, except if a better way would be proposed, I see none for now...

Jacques


Le 07/01/2018 à 11:36, Michael Brohl a écrit :

> Hi everyone,
>
> please have a look at the issue mentioned below and express your opionion if we should remove the different schema configurations from the main
> entityengine.xml or if we should keep them.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael
>
>
> Am 07.01.18 um 11:23 schrieb Pierre Smits (JIRA):
>>      [
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8230?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16315152#comment-16315152 
>> ]
>>
>> Pierre Smits commented on OFBIZ-8230:
>> -------------------------------------
>>
>> Closing an improvement ticket unilaterally, while you're not the assignee, is not in line with the Apache Way.
>> This would - at least - require a consensus of the community (or at least 3 binding votes, as this is a procedural matter).
>>
>>
>>
>>> Disentangle platform specific entity engine schemas
>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>                  Key: OFBIZ-8230
>>>                  URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8230
>>>              Project: OFBiz
>>>           Issue Type: Improvement
>>>           Components: framework
>>>     Affects Versions: Trunk
>>>             Reporter: Pierre Smits
>>>             Assignee: Pierre Smits
>>>             Priority: Minor
>>>               Labels: database, devops, refactoring
>>>          Attachments: OFBIZ-8230-entityengine-postgresql.xml.patch, OFBIZ-8230-entityengine.xml.patch
>>>
>>>
>>> Disentangle entity engine schemas for specific rdbms platforms from entityengine.xml
>>
>>
>> --
>> This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
>> (v6.4.14#64029)
>
>

[James Yong-2]

Hi everyone,

Only did a quick look at the 2 patches.

I think the improvement is incomplete and effectively removed the datasource configurations like MSSQL, MySQL, Oracle etc. Developers (like me) using these databases will require additional work to find and apply the missing configurations.

So my vote is +1, to keep the different datasource configurations.

Regards,
James Yong

On 2018-01-07 18:36, Michael Brohl <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> please have a look at the issue mentioned below and express your
> opionion if we should remove the different schema configurations from
> the main entityengine.xml or if we should keep them.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael
>
>
> Am 07.01.18 um 11:23 schrieb Pierre Smits (JIRA):
> >      [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8230?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16315152#comment-16315152 ]
> >
> > Pierre Smits commented on OFBIZ-8230:
> > -------------------------------------
> >
> > Closing an improvement ticket unilaterally, while you're not the assignee, is not in line with the Apache Way.
> > This would - at least - require a consensus of the community (or at least 3 binding votes, as this is a procedural matter).
> >
> >
> >
> >> Disentangle platform specific entity engine schemas
> >> ---------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>                  Key: OFBIZ-8230
> >>                  URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8230
> >>              Project: OFBiz
> >>           Issue Type: Improvement
> >>           Components: framework
> >>     Affects Versions: Trunk
> >>             Reporter: Pierre Smits
> >>             Assignee: Pierre Smits
> >>             Priority: Minor
> >>               Labels: database, devops, refactoring
> >>          Attachments: OFBIZ-8230-entityengine-postgresql.xml.patch, OFBIZ-8230-entityengine.xml.patch
> >>
> >>
> >> Disentangle entity engine schemas for specific rdbms platforms from entityengine.xml
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
> > (v6.4.14#64029)
>
>
>

Le 07/01/2018 à 11:43, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
> My answer to your question is: we should keep them of course, except if a better way would be proposed, I see none for now...
I must have said: I see none PROVIDED for now...

We could consider a modular solution which would include split parts of the file in the remaining main, but  I'm not sure it's worth it

[Pierre Smits-3]

We could consider having example configurations (entityengine.xml files)
for applicable database solutions in the documentation (in confluence).
Removing unused code snippets is always worth the effort put forward.




Best regards,

Pierre Smits

V.P. Apache Trafodion

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 5:36 PM, [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Le 07/01/2018 à 11:43, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>
>> My answer to your question is: we should keep them of course, except if a
>> better way would be proposed, I see none for now...
>>
> I must have said: I see none PROVIDED for now...
>
> We could consider a modular solution which would include split parts of
> the file in the remaining main, but  I'm not sure it's worth it
>

[Scott Gray-3]

I'm in favor of the status quo. It's useful to have them available out of
the box to be able to pick the one you need and proceed without having to
look elsewhere. The same goes for the fieldtype definitions.

Regards
Scott


On 8/01/2018 6:26 AM, "Pierre Smits" <[hidden email]> wrote:

We could consider having example configurations (entityengine.xml files)
for applicable database solutions in the documentation (in confluence).
Removing unused code snippets is always worth the effort put forward.




Best regards,

Pierre Smits

V.P. Apache Trafodion

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 5:36 PM, [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Le 07/01/2018 à 11:43, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>
>> My answer to your question is: we should keep them of course, except if a
>> better way would be proposed, I see none for now...
>>
> I must have said: I see none PROVIDED for now...
>
> We could consider a modular solution which would include split parts of
> the file in the remaining main, but  I'm not sure it's worth it
>

[Michael Brohl-3]

+1

Michael

Am 08.01.18 um 01:36 schrieb Scott Gray:

> I'm in favor of the status quo. It's useful to have them available out of
> the box to be able to pick the one you need and proceed without having to
> look elsewhere. The same goes for the fieldtype definitions.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
>
> On 8/01/2018 6:26 AM, "Pierre Smits" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> We could consider having example configurations (entityengine.xml files)
> for applicable database solutions in the documentation (in confluence).
> Removing unused code snippets is always worth the effort put forward.
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> V.P. Apache Trafodion
>
> On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 5:36 PM, [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Le 07/01/2018 à 11:43, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>
>>> My answer to your question is: we should keep them of course, except if a
>>> better way would be proposed, I see none for now...
>>>
>> I must have said: I see none PROVIDED for now...
>>
>> We could consider a modular solution which would include split parts of
>> the file in the remaining main, but  I'm not sure it's worth it
>>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Le 08/01/2018 à 01:36, Scott Gray a écrit :
> The same goes for the fieldtype definitions.
I agree with you for entityengine.xml, but those are separated, so I don't see the relationship.

Jacques

[Scott Gray-3]

The argument was that the configs weren't being used by default, so the
same would, in theory, apply to those files.

Regards
Scott

On 9/01/2018 5:14 AM, "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

Le 08/01/2018 à 01:36, Scott Gray a écrit :

> The same goes for the fieldtype definitions.
>
I agree with you for entityengine.xml, but those are separated, so I don't
see the relationship.

Jacques

[Jacques Le Roux]

Got it thanks

Le 08/01/2018 à 18:15, Scott Gray a écrit :

> The argument was that the configs weren't being used by default, so the
> same would, in theory, apply to those files.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 9/01/2018 5:14 AM, "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> Le 08/01/2018 à 01:36, Scott Gray a écrit :
>
>> The same goes for the fieldtype definitions.
>>
> I agree with you for entityengine.xml, but those are separated, so I don't
> see the relationship.
>
> Jacques
>