ofbiz-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Scott Gray <scott.g...@hotwaxsystems.com>
Subject Re: Difference between "id" and "id-ne" field type
Date Thu, 04 May 2017 04:20:18 GMT
Chances are the field type was left for backwards compatibility.  I'm ok
with it being removed though.

Regards
Scott

On 4 May 2017 at 15:32, Taher Alkhateeb <slidingfilaments@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hmmm I was actually rethinking about this, and this reminds me somewhat of
> the "Bounded context" concept from DDD. Some services might want to
> validate while others don't on certain fields depending on context, and
> hence delegating that validation to services makes sense (no domain exists
> in OFBiz).
>
> The problem of the existence of id-ne lingers though. It's putting
> unneceasary cognitive strain on users to figure out what is it and what to
> do with it. Also, this means no validation can happen for entity-auto CRUD
> services.
>
> So, I'm a bit on the fence, leaning slightly towards removing id-ne, but I
> think we must choose one of:
> 1- removing id-ne
> 2- reintroducing validation
>
> On May 4, 2017 3:10 AM, "Scott Gray" <scott.gray@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
>
> > Took a while to dig it out but here it is:
> > http://ofbiz.markmail.org/thread/c6ee3ewyo6jpik7k
> >
> > It's not as in-depth as I'd hoped, but it was purposefully removed all
> the
> > same.
> >
> > Regards
> > Scott
> >
> > On 3 May 2017 at 17:42, Aditya Sharma <aditya.sharma@hotwaxsystems.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Scott,
> > >
> > > As there is very less information available with the commit I found it
> > > quite difficult to find that discussion. Maybe I just missed out
> > something.
> > > Could you please just help me trace that out to understand it well?
> > >
> > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > Aditya Sharma
> > > Enterprise Software Engineer
> > > HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
> > > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/
> > >
> > >       <https://www.linkedin.com/in/aditya-sharma-78291810a/>
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Aditya Sharma <
> > > aditya.sharma@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Taher,
> > > >
> > > > Totally agreed to that it should be at entity engine level and
> default
> > to
> > > > false as that way it will not affect the current implementations and
> > will
> > > > give more scope for its enhancements to cater specific needs.
> > > >
> > > > > My recommendation is to reintroduce the validation attribute.
> > However!
> > > > the
> > > > > validation IMO should happen at the entity engine level, not the
> > > database
> > > > > level (for not null), and also the default value should be false
if
> > > > > omitted. We also need to think of the design in respect of the
> > > validation
> > > > > attributes and how they apply.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > > Aditya Sharma
> > > > Enterprise Software Engineer
> > > > HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
> > > > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/
> > > >
> > > >       <https://www.linkedin.com/in/aditya-sharma-78291810a/>
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Scott Gray <
> > > scott.gray@hotwaxsystems.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> It was removed purposefully and there was a discussion about it. I'd
> > > >> suggest we all need to go back and look at that discussion before
> > > deciding
> > > >> how to proceed.
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards
> > > >> Scott
> > > >>
> > > >> On 1/05/2017 19:03, "Taher Alkhateeb" <slidingfilaments@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > I don't have the historical context, so please excuse if I'm
off.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > My recommendation is to reintroduce the validation attribute.
> > However!
> > > >> the
> > > >> > validation IMO should happen at the entity engine level, not
the
> > > >> database
> > > >> > level (for not null), and also the default value should be false
> if
> > > >> > omitted. We also need to think of the design in respect of the
> > > >> validation
> > > >> > attributes and how they apply.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Aditya Sharma <
> > > >> > aditya.sharma@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Hi,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > While creating an entity I was in ambiguity whether to go
for
> > "*id*"
> > > >> or "
> > > >> > > *id-ne*" field type. When I googled it I came across this
very
> > > >> enriching
> > > >> > > discussion.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/EntityEngine-field-types-
> > > >> > td2251546.html
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > As stated, an "id-ne" field can only have a *non-empty*
value.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I was very curious to know how it is implemented in OFBiz.
I
> found
> > > >> that
> > > >> > > almost all the *fieldtype*.xml* files have *same* *sql-type*
and
> > > >> > > *java-type*
> > > >> > > for these 2 field types but I couldn't get any trace of
how that
> > > >> > not-empty
> > > >> > > constraint is levied upon "id-ne" fields.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I even looked at table structure for those fields having
"id-ne"
> > > field
> > > >> > type
> > > >> > > but there was no "not-null" constraint at even the database
> level.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > When dug into it further I can across this commit where
validate
> > > >> elements
> > > >> > > were removed from fieldtype*.xml files.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > http://markmail.org/message/otec62xiwkpjttkq
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=959708
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > But I can't get why it was removed and when it was removed
> whether
> > > >> there
> > > >> > > was some implementation that took its place for those
> validations.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > To further check if it even works I found an OOTB entity
having
> a
> > > >> > > non-primary key "id-ne" field. I found that "*Picklist*"
entity
> > has
> > > a
> > > >> > field
> > > >> > > *shipmentMethodTypeId* as "id- ne" type. When we *create
a
> > picklist*
> > > >> for
> > > >> > an
> > > >> > > order from Facility Manager, *shipmentMethodTypeId* can
be
> > *empty*.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > If my explorations are correct currently there is no difference
> > > >> between
> > > >> > > "id" and "id-ne" at the implementation level and there should
> be a
> > > >> Jira
> > > >> > for
> > > >> > > it.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > If I missed out something, can someone please enlighten
me with
> > that
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > help me understanding it well.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > >> > > Aditya Sharma
> > > >> > > Enterprise Software Engineer
> > > >> > > HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
> > > >> > > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >       <https://www.linkedin.com/in/aditya-sharma-78291810a/>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message