http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/how-about-adding-a-paymentMethodName-to-PaymentMethod-tp169026p169036.html
There would be no reason to have to go through the Entity Engine just because of something like this, that's somewhat silly... sorry.
Regardless of the data model you have to be aware of the model in order to effectively get anything out of any database.
In this circumstance it is not anything new. Various fields required for the CreditCard, EftAccount, etc require the fields on the PaymentMethod entity. The same is true for Party. The same is true for ContactMech. The same is true for any set of entities in OFBiz that all share the same primary key, one of which entities will "own" that primary key.
That would make it non-normalized? Well of course! Why on earth would we want anything normalized in a modern system like OFBiz? The only reason for normalization in a data model traditionally is for performance, but at the often severe price of limiting flexibility, or perhaps more precisely: destroying flexibility.
This is one of many causes of out of control costs of enterprise systems that is simply not needed for modern hardware and database software.
Even 20 years ago it was a stupid idea. That's all there is to it. Anyone with any experience with optimization knows that you write for flexibility and simplicity, then test to find the performance bottlenecks and then you fix those bottlenecks only introducing complexity and limiting flexibility where _absolutely_ necessary (ie where no creativity can be applied to avoid it).
Perhaps saying it was a stupid idea is too harsh, and somewhat wrong. The normalization patterns are masterfully effective for optimization, but when applied preemptively instead of for optimization following the pattern described above. It was somewhat the case that for older hardware preemptively optimizing was necessary because if you waited it wouldn't change anything, you'd have to do those optimizations anyway.
These days, that simply isn't true. If it were true a package like OFBiz would be impossible because the implementation would have to be so specific to a certain set of requirements that it would be useless for other organizations, and even more so for other industries.
You can disagree with me all day if you want. I've been through this dozens of times with dozens of people who have experience with this older style of system or database. This is one of the more important keys to the success of OFBiz, and without it the project would simply not be what it is today, if it were at all...
> Because it's an inconsistant dependency which makes it
> nonnormalized. Sure that's database design theory and
> rules can be broken if there's enough benefit.
>
> But consider the real world dificulties that arise
> when you have incosistant dependency. If you're entire
> application world is OFBiz, there is no problem. But,
> if you have an outside application pulling information
> from the OFBiz database, it now has to go through
> OFBiz's entity engine to get it or it has to be aware
> that some of the credit card information is in the
> PaymentMethod entity. This is unnecessary if you keep
> the data model normalized whenever possible. It is
> certainly possible in this instance.
>
>
> --- "David E. Jones" <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> If each type of PaymentMethod might have a
>> description on it (ie CreditCard, EftAccount, etc),
>> then why not put if on the PaymentMethod entity? In
>> fact, I think it's somewhat silly not to...
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>> Re first comment:
>>>
>>> If a paymentMethod requires no additional entity
>> what
>>> is the name doing for you that the type isn't?
>>>
>>> Re second comment (but there is no description
>> on...):
>>> I'm saying that there should be a
>>> CreditCard.description, et al but not a
>>> PaymentMethod.description.
>>>
>>> Re third comment (if i have to .getRelated it's a
>>> mess):
>>>
>>> And if i'm only working with credit cards, I have
>> to
>>> .getRelated back to the PaymentMethod. Isn't that
>> the
>>> same mess? There's no benefit except for this
>>> specific application. You're sacrificing
>>> normalization in the data model for coding ease
>> that
>>> doesn't run both ways.
>>>
>>> Placing the description in the PaymentMethod for
>> what
>>> you're wanting to accomplish creates an
>> inconsistant
>>> dependency.
>>>
>>>
>>> --- Si Chen <
[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 28, 2006, at 4:21 PM, Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Let me explain it differently. The
>> PaymentMethod
>>>>> entity is an entity of convenience, not an
>> entity
>>>> that
>>>>> describes anything.
>>>> No, it's an entity that describes a payment
>> method.
>>>> There are some
>>>> payment methods which have additional information
>>>> specific to them,
>>>> but then again there may be some other payment
>>>> methods which don't
>>>> require additional entities.
>>>>> So now we add description. But, there's already
>> a
>>>>> description (firstName, lastName) for Person and
>> a
>>>>> description (groupName) for Corporation. This
>> is
>>>>> information that is likely to change and we will
>>>> need
>>>>> to keep track of it in multiple locations when
>> it
>>>> is
>>>>> unneccesary.
>>>>>
>>>> But there is no description on CreditCard,
>>>> EftAccount, nor is there
>>>> an equivalent field. So this is not the case
>> right?
>>>>> So, there's no benefit of adding the
>> description,
>>>> but
>>>>> you've added the possibility of the
>> nonnormalized
>>>> data
>>>>> to be inconsistant. Does that make a good data
>>>> model?
>>>>
>>>> Actually there's a real benefit. If I just want
>> to
>>>> get the
>>>> description of a PaymentMethod and it's on the
>>>> PaymentMethod, it's
>>>> very easy. If I have to .getRelated based on the
>>>> type of the
>>>> PaymentMethod to another entity, it's a mess.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --- David E Jones <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Huh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>>>> It may apply to all payment methods (I'm not
>>>>>> really
>>>>>>> sure that it applies to all current payment
>>>>>> methods,
>>>>>>> much less ALL that may exist), but it does not
>>>>>>> describe the payment method. It describes the
>>>>>> payment
>>>>>>> method's child so it should go in the entity
>>>> that
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> is describing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Following through with the approach of putting
>>>> the
>>>>>>> field in PaymentMethod entity puts you in the
>>>>>> position
>>>>>>> of modifying the data to fit the data model
>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>>> keeping the data model flexible enough to fit
>>>> the
>>>>>>> data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- Si Chen <
[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I disagree. This is a descriptive note that
>>>>>> applies
>>>>>>>> to all
>>>>>>>> PaymentMethods so why put it in the child
>>>>>> entities.
>>>>>>>> If you had a
>>>>>>>> parent class which had a field that all
>>>> inherited
>>>>>>>> classes should
>>>>>>>> have, shouldn't be in the parent class?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 2006, at 1:35 PM, Chris Howe
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Bank A general account" does not describe
>> the
>>>>>>>>> PaymentMethod, it describes the credit card,
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> company account, the gift card, etc so that
>>>>>> field
>>>>>>>>> should go on the CreditCard, etc entity.
>> Now
>>>> if
>>>>>>>>> you're using it as an alias for the Payment
>>>>>>>> Method,
>>>>>>>>> then you should create a
>>>> PaymentMethodAttribute
>>>>>>>> entity
>>>>>>>>> and make a relationship between the two.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On a side note. I've noticed a couple of
>>>> fields
>>>>>>>>> getting added onto entities in svn that are
>>>>>> quick
>>>>>>>>> fixes to gain functionality but cause a loss
>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> entity's meaning. PaymentMethod.partyId is
>>>> one
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> quickly comes to mind.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --- Si Chen
>> <
[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi everybody.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What do you think of adding a field
>>>>>>>>>> "paymentMethodName" to
>>>>>>>>>> PaymentMethod, so a company can identify
>> that
>>>>>>>> method
>>>>>>>>>> A is "Bank A
>>>>>>>>>> general account", etc. etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Si
>>>>>>>>>>
>