Posted by
cjhowe on
URL: http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/RFC-Order-package-entities-tp178233p178235.html
--- Jacopo Cappellato <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> Chris Howe wrote:
> >
> > The following appear as if they could be reintroduced as orderTypes
> > with additional tables for their unique fields
> > order.request
> > order.quote
> > order.return
>
> In general, I'm against this kind of refactorings: there are
> definitely
> pros and cons for the two approaches and we could definitely discuss
> about them for days and days (probably without any agreement on the
> best
> solution); so I am pragmatic on this: there is a lot of existing code
>
> built on top of these entities, no specific problems caused by this
> design -> thus no reason to change; especially if the change is
> suggested by the bare analysis of the data model and not also on the
> existing business logic and existing problems that the data model is
> causing.
> So, no I'm against this change.
>
> Jacopo
>
>
There's just seems to be a lot of redundancy with this. I'm not so
concerned with request, quote or shoppinglist (i meant to include that
as well) as there isn't much business logic overlap. However, with
return there is quite a lot (inventory management, possibly shipping,
OrderItemAssoc, Adjustments etc). While it currently works, it makes
it quite a bit more difficult to learn as someone trying to pick it up
is likely to erroneously assume it has less in common with OrderHeader,
etc than it actually does. I think there's some interest in making
these simpler to use/ more generic. Are you against because of
resources (time actually spent rewriting/reviewing it) or is there more
of a technical aspect (backwards compatibility, fragile code, etc)?
Chris