WorkEffort.TimeTransparency

[Adrian Crum]

The TimeTransparency field in the WorkEffort entity appears to be unused.

I believe the field was inspired by the iCalendar specification, but I
don't understand why it was given a numeric data type. It seems to me
this should be an enumeration: Transparent or Opaque.

Does anyone have any insight into if/how the TimeTransparency field is
used in OFBiz?

-Adrian

[BJ Freeman]

I know in scheduling it is if the time is free or committed.
like a task may not take any time but does have a place in the events of
doing something. Maybe a tickler to check something.

Adrian Crum wrote:

> The TimeTransparency field in the WorkEffort entity appears to be unused.
>
> I believe the field was inspired by the iCalendar specification, but I
> don't understand why it was given a numeric data type. It seems to me
> this should be an enumeration: Transparent or Opaque.
>
> Does anyone have any insight into if/how the TimeTransparency field is
> used in OFBiz?
>
> -Adrian
>
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: <[hidden email]>
>I know in scheduling it is if the time is free or committed.
> like a task may not take any time but does have a place in the events of doing something. Maybe a tickler to check something.

Yes it'is from Transparent/Opaque in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar (actually more in
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar#Ev.C3.A9nements_.28VEVENT.29)
I don't know any use in OFBiz and did not find anyting related too.

So, yes enumeration seems better than numeric. Maybe a misinterpreatation related to windows's opacity in UI (often 0 to 10 is used)
?

Jacques

> Adrian Crum wrote:
>> The TimeTransparency field in the WorkEffort entity appears to be unused.
>>
>> I believe the field was inspired by the iCalendar specification, but I don't understand why it was given a numeric data type. It
>> seems to me this should be an enumeration: Transparent or Opaque.
>>
>> Does anyone have any insight into if/how the TimeTransparency field is used in OFBiz?
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>>
>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

To be clear (from French definition in Wikipedia  iCalendar)
Transparency : determines whether the resource affected at an event is made unavailable (OPAQUE, TRANSPARENT)

From my POV, it's strange words used for availability !

Jacques

From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>

> From: <[hidden email]>
>>I know in scheduling it is if the time is free or committed.
>> like a task may not take any time but does have a place in the events of doing something. Maybe a tickler to check something.
>
> Yes it'is from Transparent/Opaque in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar (actually more in
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar#Ev.C3.A9nements_.28VEVENT.29)
> I don't know any use in OFBiz and did not find anyting related too.
>
> So, yes enumeration seems better than numeric. Maybe a misinterpreatation related to windows's opacity in UI (often 0 to 10 is
> used) ?
>
> Jacques
>
>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> The TimeTransparency field in the WorkEffort entity appears to be unused.
>>>
>>> I believe the field was inspired by the iCalendar specification, but I don't understand why it was given a numeric data type. It
>>> seems to me this should be an enumeration: Transparent or Opaque.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any insight into if/how the TimeTransparency field is used in OFBiz?
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Adrian Crum]

Well, even though we would store the transparency that way, it doesn't
mean we have to present it to the user that way. In other words,

UI "Available" = TimeTransparency "TRANSPARENT"
UI "Unavailable" = TimeTransparency "OPAQUE"

I saw somewhere on the 'net where someone added a third choice - UNDEFINED.

-Adrian

Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> To be clear (from French definition in Wikipedia  iCalendar)
> Transparency : determines whether the resource affected at an event is
> made unavailable (OPAQUE, TRANSPARENT)
>
>> From my POV, it's strange words used for availability !
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>> From: <[hidden email]>
>>> I know in scheduling it is if the time is free or committed.
>>> like a task may not take any time but does have a place in the events
>>> of doing something. Maybe a tickler to check something.
>>
>> Yes it'is from Transparent/Opaque in
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar (actually more in
>> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar#Ev.C3.A9nements_.28VEVENT.29)
>> I don't know any use in OFBiz and did not find anyting related too.
>>
>> So, yes enumeration seems better than numeric. Maybe a
>> misinterpreatation related to windows's opacity in UI (often 0 to 10
>> is used) ?
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>> The TimeTransparency field in the WorkEffort entity appears to be
>>>> unused.
>>>>
>>>> I believe the field was inspired by the iCalendar specification, but
>>>> I don't understand why it was given a numeric data type. It seems to
>>>> me this should be an enumeration: Transparent or Opaque.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone have any insight into if/how the TimeTransparency field
>>>> is used in OFBiz?
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Adding Undefined sounds wise to me (but seems not std ?)

Jacques
 
From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: WorkEffort.TimeTransparency

> Well, even though we would store the transparency that way, it doesn't
> mean we have to present it to the user that way. In other words,
>
> UI "Available" = TimeTransparency "TRANSPARENT"
> UI "Unavailable" = TimeTransparency "OPAQUE"
>
> I saw somewhere on the 'net where someone added a third choice - UNDEFINED.
>
> -Adrian
>
> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> To be clear (from French definition in Wikipedia  iCalendar)
>> Transparency : determines whether the resource affected at an event is
>> made unavailable (OPAQUE, TRANSPARENT)
>>
>>> From my POV, it's strange words used for availability !
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>> From: <[hidden email]>
>>>> I know in scheduling it is if the time is free or committed.
>>>> like a task may not take any time but does have a place in the events
>>>> of doing something. Maybe a tickler to check something.
>>>
>>> Yes it'is from Transparent/Opaque in
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar (actually more in
>>> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar#Ev.C3.A9nements_.28VEVENT.29)
>>> I don't know any use in OFBiz and did not find anyting related too.
>>>
>>> So, yes enumeration seems better than numeric. Maybe a
>>> misinterpreatation related to windows's opacity in UI (often 0 to 10
>>> is used) ?
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>> The TimeTransparency field in the WorkEffort entity appears to be
>>>>> unused.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe the field was inspired by the iCalendar specification, but
>>>>> I don't understand why it was given a numeric data type. It seems to
>>>>> me this should be an enumeration: Transparent or Opaque.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone have any insight into if/how the TimeTransparency field
>>>>> is used in OFBiz?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Adrian Crum]

I'll probably leave it out for now. It can be added if someone can find
a need for it.

I'm not sure where to go from here. Do I just convert the field to an id
data type, or do I deprecate it and create a new field?

-Adrian

Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Adding Undefined sounds wise to me (but seems not std ?)
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 4:44 PM
> Subject: Re: WorkEffort.TimeTransparency
>
>
>> Well, even though we would store the transparency that way, it doesn't
>> mean we have to present it to the user that way. In other words,
>>
>> UI "Available" = TimeTransparency "TRANSPARENT"
>> UI "Unavailable" = TimeTransparency "OPAQUE"
>>
>> I saw somewhere on the 'net where someone added a third choice -
>> UNDEFINED.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>> To be clear (from French definition in Wikipedia  iCalendar)
>>> Transparency : determines whether the resource affected at an event
>>> is made unavailable (OPAQUE, TRANSPARENT)
>>>
>>>> From my POV, it's strange words used for availability !
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>>> From: <[hidden email]>
>>>>> I know in scheduling it is if the time is free or committed.
>>>>> like a task may not take any time but does have a place in the
>>>>> events of doing something. Maybe a tickler to check something.
>>>>
>>>> Yes it'is from Transparent/Opaque in
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar (actually more in
>>>> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar#Ev.C3.A9nements_.28VEVENT.29)
>>>> I don't know any use in OFBiz and did not find anyting related too.
>>>>
>>>> So, yes enumeration seems better than numeric. Maybe a
>>>> misinterpreatation related to windows's opacity in UI (often 0 to 10
>>>> is used) ?
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>> The TimeTransparency field in the WorkEffort entity appears to be
>>>>>> unused.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe the field was inspired by the iCalendar specification,
>>>>>> but I don't understand why it was given a numeric data type. It
>>>>>> seems to me this should be an enumeration: Transparent or Opaque.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anyone have any insight into if/how the TimeTransparency
>>>>>> field is used in OFBiz?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

If it's not used I will reuse. But maybe someone else somewhere is using it ? Then our duty should be to deprecate and create a new
one.

Jacques

From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>

> I'll probably leave it out for now. It can be added if someone can find a need for it.
>
> I'm not sure where to go from here. Do I just convert the field to an id data type, or do I deprecate it and create a new field?
>
> -Adrian
>
> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> Adding Undefined sounds wise to me (but seems not std ?)
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
>> To: <[hidden email]>
>> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 4:44 PM
>> Subject: Re: WorkEffort.TimeTransparency
>>
>>
>>> Well, even though we would store the transparency that way, it doesn't mean we have to present it to the user that way. In other
>>> words,
>>>
>>> UI "Available" = TimeTransparency "TRANSPARENT"
>>> UI "Unavailable" = TimeTransparency "OPAQUE"
>>>
>>> I saw somewhere on the 'net where someone added a third choice - UNDEFINED.
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>> To be clear (from French definition in Wikipedia  iCalendar)
>>>> Transparency : determines whether the resource affected at an event is made unavailable (OPAQUE, TRANSPARENT)
>>>>
>>>>> From my POV, it's strange words used for availability !
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>>>> From: <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> I know in scheduling it is if the time is free or committed.
>>>>>> like a task may not take any time but does have a place in the events of doing something. Maybe a tickler to check something.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it'is from Transparent/Opaque in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar (actually more in
>>>>> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar#Ev.C3.A9nements_.28VEVENT.29)
>>>>> I don't know any use in OFBiz and did not find anyting related too.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, yes enumeration seems better than numeric. Maybe a misinterpreatation related to windows's opacity in UI (often 0 to 10 is
>>>>> used) ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>> The TimeTransparency field in the WorkEffort entity appears to be unused.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe the field was inspired by the iCalendar specification, but I don't understand why it was given a numeric data
>>>>>>> type. It seems to me this should be an enumeration: Transparent or Opaque.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does anyone have any insight into if/how the TimeTransparency field is used in OFBiz?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[David E Jones]

I just searched the trunk and I don't see it used anywhere, just some  
labels and a map processor (a REALLY old one!).

For an enumerated value it might be nice to use the Enumeration  
entity, and then instead of "timeTransparency" the field name should  
be "timeTransparencyEnumId", and we can probably just get rid of the  
old field (unless someone objects; it's REALLY old and has probably  
never been used).

-David


On Oct 3, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> I'll probably leave it out for now. It can be added if someone can  
> find a need for it.
>
> I'm not sure where to go from here. Do I just convert the field to  
> an id data type, or do I deprecate it and create a new field?
>
> -Adrian
>
> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> Adding Undefined sounds wise to me (but seems not std ?)
>> Jacques
>> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
>> To: <[hidden email]>
>> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 4:44 PM
>> Subject: Re: WorkEffort.TimeTransparency
>>> Well, even though we would store the transparency that way, it  
>>> doesn't mean we have to present it to the user that way. In other  
>>> words,
>>>
>>> UI "Available" = TimeTransparency "TRANSPARENT"
>>> UI "Unavailable" = TimeTransparency "OPAQUE"
>>>
>>> I saw somewhere on the 'net where someone added a third choice -  
>>> UNDEFINED.
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>> To be clear (from French definition in Wikipedia  iCalendar)
>>>> Transparency : determines whether the resource affected at an  
>>>> event is made unavailable (OPAQUE, TRANSPARENT)
>>>>
>>>>> From my POV, it's strange words used for availability !
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>>>> From: <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> I know in scheduling it is if the time is free or committed.
>>>>>> like a task may not take any time but does have a place in the  
>>>>>> events of doing something. Maybe a tickler to check something.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it'is from Transparent/Opaque in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar 
>>>>>  (actually more in http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar#Ev.C3.A9nements_.28VEVENT.29)
>>>>> I don't know any use in OFBiz and did not find anyting related  
>>>>> too.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, yes enumeration seems better than numeric. Maybe a  
>>>>> misinterpreatation related to windows's opacity in UI (often 0  
>>>>> to 10 is used) ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>> The TimeTransparency field in the WorkEffort entity appears to  
>>>>>>> be unused.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe the field was inspired by the iCalendar  
>>>>>>> specification, but I don't understand why it was given a  
>>>>>>> numeric data type. It seems to me this should be an  
>>>>>>> enumeration: Transparent or Opaque.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does anyone have any insight into if/how the TimeTransparency  
>>>>>>> field is used in OFBiz?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>

[Adrian Crum]

Thanks for looking into that David.

After posting that message, I looked into the existing schema and
realized that time transparency might not belong in the WorkEffort
entity - it should be in the relation entities instead.

There is already some work done in that respect - the
WorkEffortPartyAssignment.availabilityStatusId field. I'll follow that
pattern and add the availabilityStatusId field to the
WorkEffortFixedAssetAssign entity. That means the StatusType entity
would be used to specify transparency, not Enumeration.

-Adrian


David E Jones wrote:

>
> I just searched the trunk and I don't see it used anywhere, just some
> labels and a map processor (a REALLY old one!).
>
> For an enumerated value it might be nice to use the Enumeration entity,
> and then instead of "timeTransparency" the field name should be
> "timeTransparencyEnumId", and we can probably just get rid of the old
> field (unless someone objects; it's REALLY old and has probably never
> been used).
>
> -David
>
>
> On Oct 3, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
>> I'll probably leave it out for now. It can be added if someone can
>> find a need for it.
>>
>> I'm not sure where to go from here. Do I just convert the field to an
>> id data type, or do I deprecate it and create a new field?
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>> Adding Undefined sounds wise to me (but seems not std ?)
>>> Jacques
>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
>>> To: <[hidden email]>
>>> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 4:44 PM
>>> Subject: Re: WorkEffort.TimeTransparency
>>>> Well, even though we would store the transparency that way, it
>>>> doesn't mean we have to present it to the user that way. In other
>>>> words,
>>>>
>>>> UI "Available" = TimeTransparency "TRANSPARENT"
>>>> UI "Unavailable" = TimeTransparency "OPAQUE"
>>>>
>>>> I saw somewhere on the 'net where someone added a third choice -
>>>> UNDEFINED.
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>> To be clear (from French definition in Wikipedia  iCalendar)
>>>>> Transparency : determines whether the resource affected at an event
>>>>> is made unavailable (OPAQUE, TRANSPARENT)
>>>>>
>>>>>> From my POV, it's strange words used for availability !
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> From: <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> I know in scheduling it is if the time is free or committed.
>>>>>>> like a task may not take any time but does have a place in the
>>>>>>> events of doing something. Maybe a tickler to check something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes it'is from Transparent/Opaque in
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar (actually more in
>>>>>> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar#Ev.C3.A9nements_.28VEVENT.29)
>>>>>> I don't know any use in OFBiz and did not find anyting related too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, yes enumeration seems better than numeric. Maybe a
>>>>>> misinterpreatation related to windows's opacity in UI (often 0 to
>>>>>> 10 is used) ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>>> The TimeTransparency field in the WorkEffort entity appears to
>>>>>>>> be unused.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I believe the field was inspired by the iCalendar specification,
>>>>>>>> but I don't understand why it was given a numeric data type. It
>>>>>>>> seems to me this should be an enumeration: Transparent or Opaque.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does anyone have any insight into if/how the TimeTransparency
>>>>>>>> field is used in OFBiz?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>
>

[David E Jones]

Very good point! I totally forgot about that (even though I worked-on/
used it just a few weeks ago).

-David


On Oct 3, 2008, at 12:22 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> Thanks for looking into that David.
>
> After posting that message, I looked into the existing schema and  
> realized that time transparency might not belong in the WorkEffort  
> entity - it should be in the relation entities instead.
>
> There is already some work done in that respect - the  
> WorkEffortPartyAssignment.availabilityStatusId field. I'll follow  
> that pattern and add the availabilityStatusId field to the  
> WorkEffortFixedAssetAssign entity. That means the StatusType entity  
> would be used to specify transparency, not Enumeration.
>
> -Adrian
>
>
> David E Jones wrote:
>> I just searched the trunk and I don't see it used anywhere, just  
>> some labels and a map processor (a REALLY old one!).
>> For an enumerated value it might be nice to use the Enumeration  
>> entity, and then instead of "timeTransparency" the field name  
>> should be "timeTransparencyEnumId", and we can probably just get  
>> rid of the old field (unless someone objects; it's REALLY old and  
>> has probably never been used).
>> -David
>> On Oct 3, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> I'll probably leave it out for now. It can be added if someone can  
>>> find a need for it.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure where to go from here. Do I just convert the field to  
>>> an id data type, or do I deprecate it and create a new field?
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>> Adding Undefined sounds wise to me (but seems not std ?)
>>>> Jacques
>>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
>>>> To: <[hidden email]>
>>>> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 4:44 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: WorkEffort.TimeTransparency
>>>>> Well, even though we would store the transparency that way, it  
>>>>> doesn't mean we have to present it to the user that way. In  
>>>>> other words,
>>>>>
>>>>> UI "Available" = TimeTransparency "TRANSPARENT"
>>>>> UI "Unavailable" = TimeTransparency "OPAQUE"
>>>>>
>>>>> I saw somewhere on the 'net where someone added a third choice -  
>>>>> UNDEFINED.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>> To be clear (from French definition in Wikipedia  iCalendar)
>>>>>> Transparency : determines whether the resource affected at an  
>>>>>> event is made unavailable (OPAQUE, TRANSPARENT)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From my POV, it's strange words used for availability !
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> From: <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> I know in scheduling it is if the time is free or committed.
>>>>>>>> like a task may not take any time but does have a place in  
>>>>>>>> the events of doing something. Maybe a tickler to check  
>>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes it'is from Transparent/Opaque in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar 
>>>>>>>  (actually more in http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar#Ev.C3.A9nements_.28VEVENT.29)
>>>>>>> I don't know any use in OFBiz and did not find anyting related  
>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, yes enumeration seems better than numeric. Maybe a  
>>>>>>> misinterpreatation related to windows's opacity in UI (often 0  
>>>>>>> to 10 is used) ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The TimeTransparency field in the WorkEffort entity appears  
>>>>>>>>> to be unused.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I believe the field was inspired by the iCalendar  
>>>>>>>>> specification, but I don't understand why it was given a  
>>>>>>>>> numeric data type. It seems to me this should be an  
>>>>>>>>> enumeration: Transparent or Opaque.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does anyone have any insight into if/how the  
>>>>>>>>> TimeTransparency field is used in OFBiz?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>