ofbiz-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Deyan Tsvetanov <deyan_of...@flexbrix.com>
Subject Re: Add created_by and updated_by to all tables ?
Date Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:01:29 GMT
Well I don't agree. 

A classic example of entities relation is party <- person. 

One could update only the Person entity - change the lastName. So we
update updated_by field only of the Person entity. 

One could update only the party entity - change the status - so we
update updated_by field only of the Party entity. 

I actually can not think of a table / entity that might not need the two
fields. 

Even if we take ENUMERATION_TYPE - it currently has created_stamp_tx and
updated_stamp_tx - why should it not have updated_by and created_by as
well ?

-- Deyan 

On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 08:50 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote:
> an entity has a relationship with another entity.
> so if the main entity is updated those in the relationship will be tied 
> to the main entity and don't need the two fields.
> 
> yes those that are only updated by person should have the two fields, in 
> my opinion.
> 
> Deyan Tsvetanov sent the following on 7/19/2010 8:42 AM:
> >> Many entities data is not created without a dependence on another one
> >> so those should not need those two fields.
> >
> > This one i didn't understand :)
> >
> > In general data is being updated either by a person ( user or an
> > administrator or a consultant ) or by a process ( the system account ).
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> > On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 08:29 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote:
> >> there are many operations that are generated by the system levels, such
> >> as status change. I can see the entities that are affected solely by
> >> users having those fields.
> >> I can see some being added but not every entity.
> >> Many entities data is not created without a dependence on another one so
> >> those should not need those two fields.
> >>
> >>
> >> Deyan Tsvetanov sent the following on 7/19/2010 8:03 AM:
> >>> Hi guys,
> >>>
> >>> another suggestion: to add 2 mandatory fields created_by and updated_by
> >>> to all tables by default like created_stamp and updated_stamp. Currently
> >>> there columns are added on demand in the entity definition but they are
> >>> often needed.
> >>>
> >>> Examples of usage:
> >>> 1)  status change - there is no created_by in the entity status table -
> >>> party_status.
> >>> In general customers would like to know who and when disabled the party
> >>> and who re-enabled it. The same applies to orders, invoices, etc.
> >>>
> >>> 2) Another example for using these 2 columns is entity lock. When an
> >>> EntityLockedException is thrown it would be nice to include the
> >>> userLoginId of the user who updated the record as well as the time so we
> >>> can notify the user:
> >>> "The record you are trying to save has been updated by Administrator,
> >>> The priviledged 5 minutes 32 secods ago. To cancel your request and
> >>> reload the changes click reload. To go ahead and overwrite the changes
> >>> done by Administrator click "Overwrite". "
> >>> Or so ...
> >>>
> >>> 3) Record based security - users could be allowed to modify records they
> >>> have created even without edit or admin permissions.
> >>>
> >>> Therefore it would be very very helpful if these 2 columns are present
> >>> by default, even if they allow null values to preserve the current code
> >>> working.
> >>>
> >>> -- deyan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >



Mime
View raw message