ofbiz-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Taher Alkhateeb <slidingfilame...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Difference between "id" and "id-ne" field type
Date Thu, 04 May 2017 03:32:36 GMT
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