You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@ofbiz.apache.org by Ashish Vijaywargiya <vi...@gmail.com> on 2008/07/15 11:46:47 UTC
Re: Question related to use of WorkEffortAssoc entity in OFBiz.
Can anybody having good insight on WorkEffort module put some comments to
understand this scenario ?
I am also interested to know about it.
Thanks !!!
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Rishi Solanki <ri...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> We have *WorkEffort* Entity in OFBiz in which we maintain a recursive
> relation ship using attribute *parentWorkEffortId.*
> Here we again have the *WorkEffortAssoc *in which we again relate two
> workeffort by using the *workEffortFrom *and* workEffortTo.*
> Now my question is like that, if we have a relationship to relate the
> workEffortId by it self ( i.e by an another workEffortId ), then why we
> need
> the
> *WorkEffortAssoc *for the same purpose.
>
> *Or it is for handeling a different scenario in (OFBiz Work Effort Data
> Modeling).
> **
> *
> *Thanks and Regards
> [Rishi Solanki]*
>
--
Ashish Vijaywargiya
Indore, India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indore
Re: Question related to use of WorkEffortAssoc entity in OFBiz.
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
David,
From: "David E Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>
> Jacques,
>
> We can't document every little thing. If best practices and other
> recommendations and guidelines are too big then we might as well not
> have them because no one will take the time to understand them, and
> even those few who read them all the way through won't be able to
> remember them.
I thought about putting some organised links from bottom of Contributors Best Practice page. Hence those interested would read. I
know it's not easy to remember, sometimes I have to read things twice (with often a long time between) or even more to really absorb
them. Maybe because there are a lot of them. Nevertheless, I believe that having them documented is better than not. At least the
Commiters should be aware of them. I'm one from 2 years and I'm still not aware of all I should be. Thanks to your repeated efforts
I was able to grab most of the framework and some subtleties here and there. Really... documentation help !
> If you'd like to then by all means please do (this is not a centrally
> driven organization). Just keep in mind your target audience. If your
> question is really "how can we avoid this sort of conversation in the
> future" then I'm not really sure there is a good answer. With anything
> complex people really have to explore it and learn for themselves and
> telling them what they need to know before they realize they need to
> know it usually doesn't help. It just takes time for people to learn
> about things and understand common patterns.
Yes you are right, my father always told me the same :o)
> If anything I'd prefer people to have a good understanding of data
> structure theories and then converse intelligently based on that, and
> not have to converse at all for common situations that really need no
> discussion. However, most people don't have that background and can't
> tolerate weeks or months of study about graphs and trees and lists and
> sets and tables and indexes and hashes... and the differences and
> similarities between them... and common algorithms for working with
> them, and so on and so forth.
> I really wish EVERYONE involved with enterprise software would learn
> about these things. They are the foundational tools that we all work
> with on a daily basis and the theory and ideas around them are not
> really all that difficult compared with their utility and value in the
> things we create with them.
Yes I agree, and I'm missing such a detailled knowledge too, coming more from the algorithm branch of IT studies (sorry, BD always
bored me, even if I liked them more viewed from the logic theory side ;o). However, to be pragmatic, I'm rather sure that pointing
some details out will help people to better understand underlying concepts.
Thansk for taking the time to comment.
Jacques
> -David
>
>
> On Jul 15, 2008, at 11:31 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> David, All,
>>
>> Should we not write something around such aspects in the best
>> practices. I could begin by using the detailled recommandations
>> below...
>> David could you provide a plan to follow ? I believe it's very
>> important for contributors to keep mains and other applications clean.
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "David E Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>
>>> Just like with Product and ProductCategory going through
>>> ProductCategoryMember, when two WorkEfforts are associated they
>>> should always go through WorkEffortAssoc.
>>>
>>> I don't know why the decision was made in the Project Manager
>>> specialpurpose application to use the workEffortParentId, but it
>>> shouldn't have been used there. You'll notice in the workeffort
>>> component and webapp for the child WorkEffort tree it uses the
>>> WorkEffortAssoc, and that is how it should be.
>>>
>>> Just as with products and categories the use of this direct fields
>>> is for going in the other direction, in other words when going up
>>> the tree when you want a single WorkEffort record. When going down
>>> the tree you should always use WorkEffortAssoc (just like you
>>> would always use ProductCategoryRollup). When going up the tree
>>> and you want the multiple parents always use WorkEffortAssoc. When
>>> you want to specify one of the various parent WorkEfforts already
>>> setup in WorkEffortAssoc that is the primary parent or the like
>>> then use the workEffortParentId.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 15, 2008, at 4:35 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Jacopo for your comments.
>>>> Let's see what other has to say about workEffortParentId field.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
>>>> jacopo.cappellato@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have to admit that I don't like very much the
>>>>> workEffortParentId field
>>>>> and the way it is used; it would be better if the
>>>>> WorkEffortAssoc entity was
>>>>> used every time you have to specify an association between work
>>>>> effort: in
>>>>> this way you'll have the ability to set the type ofassociation
>>>>> and also
>>>>> validity dates.
>>>>> Sometimes having denormalized fields is useful (to speed up
>>>>> queries and
>>>>> simplify code) but unfortunately the workEffortParentId field is
>>>>> not used
>>>>> only for this and it is used a lot, especially by the manufacturing
>>>>> component, ven when the WorkEffortAssoc would do much more sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> My general suggestion would be that of using WorkEffortAssoc as
>>>>> much as
>>>>> possible (especially for new code/features).
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 15, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Can anybody having good insight on WorkEffort module put some
>>>>> comments to
>>>>>> understand this scenario ?
>>>>>> I am also interested to know about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks !!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Rishi Solanki <rishisolankii@gmail.com
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have *WorkEffort* Entity in OFBiz in which we maintain a
>>>>>>> recursive
>>>>>>> relation ship using attribute *parentWorkEffortId.*
>>>>>>> Here we again have the *WorkEffortAssoc *in which we again
>>>>>>> relate two
>>>>>>> workeffort by using the *workEffortFrom *and* workEffortTo.*
>>>>>>> Now my question is like that, if we have a relationship to
>>>>>>> relate the
>>>>>>> workEffortId by it self ( i.e by an another workEffortId ),
>>>>>>> then why we
>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> *WorkEffortAssoc *for the same purpose.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Or it is for handeling a different scenario in (OFBiz Work
>>>>>>> Effort Data
>>>>>>> Modeling).
>>>>>>> **
>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>> *Thanks and Regards
>>>>>>> [Rishi Solanki]*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ashish Vijaywargiya
>>>>>> Indore, India
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indore
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ashish Vijaywargiya
>>>> Indore, India
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indore
>>
>
Re: Question related to use of WorkEffortAssoc entity in OFBiz.
Posted by David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Jacques,
We can't document every little thing. If best practices and other
recommendations and guidelines are too big then we might as well not
have them because no one will take the time to understand them, and
even those few who read them all the way through won't be able to
remember them.
If you'd like to then by all means please do (this is not a centrally
driven organization). Just keep in mind your target audience. If your
question is really "how can we avoid this sort of conversation in the
future" then I'm not really sure there is a good answer. With anything
complex people really have to explore it and learn for themselves and
telling them what they need to know before they realize they need to
know it usually doesn't help. It just takes time for people to learn
about things and understand common patterns.
If anything I'd prefer people to have a good understanding of data
structure theories and then converse intelligently based on that, and
not have to converse at all for common situations that really need no
discussion. However, most people don't have that background and can't
tolerate weeks or months of study about graphs and trees and lists and
sets and tables and indexes and hashes... and the differences and
similarities between them... and common algorithms for working with
them, and so on and so forth.
I really wish EVERYONE involved with enterprise software would learn
about these things. They are the foundational tools that we all work
with on a daily basis and the theory and ideas around them are not
really all that difficult compared with their utility and value in the
things we create with them.
-David
On Jul 15, 2008, at 11:31 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> David, All,
>
> Should we not write something around such aspects in the best
> practices. I could begin by using the detailled recommandations
> below...
> David could you provide a plan to follow ? I believe it's very
> important for contributors to keep mains and other applications clean.
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "David E Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>
>> Just like with Product and ProductCategory going through
>> ProductCategoryMember, when two WorkEfforts are associated they
>> should always go through WorkEffortAssoc.
>>
>> I don't know why the decision was made in the Project Manager
>> specialpurpose application to use the workEffortParentId, but it
>> shouldn't have been used there. You'll notice in the workeffort
>> component and webapp for the child WorkEffort tree it uses the
>> WorkEffortAssoc, and that is how it should be.
>>
>> Just as with products and categories the use of this direct fields
>> is for going in the other direction, in other words when going up
>> the tree when you want a single WorkEffort record. When going down
>> the tree you should always use WorkEffortAssoc (just like you
>> would always use ProductCategoryRollup). When going up the tree
>> and you want the multiple parents always use WorkEffortAssoc. When
>> you want to specify one of the various parent WorkEfforts already
>> setup in WorkEffortAssoc that is the primary parent or the like
>> then use the workEffortParentId.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Jul 15, 2008, at 4:35 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Jacopo for your comments.
>>> Let's see what other has to say about workEffortParentId field.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
>>> jacopo.cappellato@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have to admit that I don't like very much the
>>>> workEffortParentId field
>>>> and the way it is used; it would be better if the
>>>> WorkEffortAssoc entity was
>>>> used every time you have to specify an association between work
>>>> effort: in
>>>> this way you'll have the ability to set the type ofassociation
>>>> and also
>>>> validity dates.
>>>> Sometimes having denormalized fields is useful (to speed up
>>>> queries and
>>>> simplify code) but unfortunately the workEffortParentId field is
>>>> not used
>>>> only for this and it is used a lot, especially by the manufacturing
>>>> component, ven when the WorkEffortAssoc would do much more sense.
>>>>
>>>> My general suggestion would be that of using WorkEffortAssoc as
>>>> much as
>>>> possible (especially for new code/features).
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 15, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Can anybody having good insight on WorkEffort module put some
>>>> comments to
>>>>> understand this scenario ?
>>>>> I am also interested to know about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks !!!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Rishi Solanki <rishisolankii@gmail.com
>>>>> >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have *WorkEffort* Entity in OFBiz in which we maintain a
>>>>>> recursive
>>>>>> relation ship using attribute *parentWorkEffortId.*
>>>>>> Here we again have the *WorkEffortAssoc *in which we again
>>>>>> relate two
>>>>>> workeffort by using the *workEffortFrom *and* workEffortTo.*
>>>>>> Now my question is like that, if we have a relationship to
>>>>>> relate the
>>>>>> workEffortId by it self ( i.e by an another workEffortId ),
>>>>>> then why we
>>>>>> need
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> *WorkEffortAssoc *for the same purpose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Or it is for handeling a different scenario in (OFBiz Work
>>>>>> Effort Data
>>>>>> Modeling).
>>>>>> **
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> *Thanks and Regards
>>>>>> [Rishi Solanki]*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ashish Vijaywargiya
>>>>> Indore, India
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indore
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ashish Vijaywargiya
>>> Indore, India
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indore
>
Re: Question related to use of WorkEffortAssoc entity in OFBiz.
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
David, All,
Should we not write something around such aspects in the best practices. I could begin by using the detailled recommandations
below...
David could you provide a plan to follow ? I believe it's very important for contributors to keep mains and other applications
clean.
Jacques
From: "David E Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>
> Just like with Product and ProductCategory going through ProductCategoryMember, when two WorkEfforts are associated they should
> always go through WorkEffortAssoc.
>
> I don't know why the decision was made in the Project Manager specialpurpose application to use the workEffortParentId, but it
> shouldn't have been used there. You'll notice in the workeffort component and webapp for the child WorkEffort tree it uses the
> WorkEffortAssoc, and that is how it should be.
>
> Just as with products and categories the use of this direct fields is for going in the other direction, in other words when going
> up the tree when you want a single WorkEffort record. When going down the tree you should always use WorkEffortAssoc (just like
> you would always use ProductCategoryRollup). When going up the tree and you want the multiple parents always use
> WorkEffortAssoc. When you want to specify one of the various parent WorkEfforts already setup in WorkEffortAssoc that is the
> primary parent or the like then use the workEffortParentId.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jul 15, 2008, at 4:35 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>
>> Thanks Jacopo for your comments.
>> Let's see what other has to say about workEffortParentId field.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
>> jacopo.cappellato@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have to admit that I don't like very much the workEffortParentId field
>>> and the way it is used; it would be better if the WorkEffortAssoc entity was
>>> used every time you have to specify an association between work effort: in
>>> this way you'll have the ability to set the type ofassociation and also
>>> validity dates.
>>> Sometimes having denormalized fields is useful (to speed up queries and
>>> simplify code) but unfortunately the workEffortParentId field is not used
>>> only for this and it is used a lot, especially by the manufacturing
>>> component, ven when the WorkEffortAssoc would do much more sense.
>>>
>>> My general suggestion would be that of using WorkEffortAssoc as much as
>>> possible (especially for new code/features).
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 15, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>>>
>>> Can anybody having good insight on WorkEffort module put some comments to
>>>> understand this scenario ?
>>>> I am also interested to know about it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks !!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Rishi Solanki <rishisolankii@gmail.com
>>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello All,
>>>>>
>>>>> We have *WorkEffort* Entity in OFBiz in which we maintain a recursive
>>>>> relation ship using attribute *parentWorkEffortId.*
>>>>> Here we again have the *WorkEffortAssoc *in which we again relate two
>>>>> workeffort by using the *workEffortFrom *and* workEffortTo.*
>>>>> Now my question is like that, if we have a relationship to relate the
>>>>> workEffortId by it self ( i.e by an another workEffortId ), then why we
>>>>> need
>>>>> the
>>>>> *WorkEffortAssoc *for the same purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Or it is for handeling a different scenario in (OFBiz Work Effort Data
>>>>> Modeling).
>>>>> **
>>>>> *
>>>>> *Thanks and Regards
>>>>> [Rishi Solanki]*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ashish Vijaywargiya
>>>> Indore, India
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indore
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ashish Vijaywargiya
>> Indore, India
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indore
>
Re: Question related to use of WorkEffortAssoc entity in OFBiz.
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@gmail.com>.
I totally agree.
Unfortunately in the manufacturing component it is even worse than
this: the parentId is used for some of the associations (if I am not
wrong, between a production run and its tasks) while the
WorkEffortAssoc is used for others (routing to routing tasks
associations, etc...); this has been done in this way in the early
days of the manufacturing component and it should really fixed... I
hope to find some time to work on it in the few weeks/months.
Jacopo
On Jul 15, 2008, at 6:15 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>
> Just like with Product and ProductCategory going through
> ProductCategoryMember, when two WorkEfforts are associated they
> should always go through WorkEffortAssoc.
>
> I don't know why the decision was made in the Project Manager
> specialpurpose application to use the workEffortParentId, but it
> shouldn't have been used there. You'll notice in the workeffort
> component and webapp for the child WorkEffort tree it uses the
> WorkEffortAssoc, and that is how it should be.
>
> Just as with products and categories the use of this direct fields
> is for going in the other direction, in other words when going up
> the tree when you want a single WorkEffort record. When going down
> the tree you should always use WorkEffortAssoc (just like you would
> always use ProductCategoryRollup). When going up the tree and you
> want the multiple parents always use WorkEffortAssoc. When you want
> to specify one of the various parent WorkEfforts already setup in
> WorkEffortAssoc that is the primary parent or the like then use the
> workEffortParentId.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jul 15, 2008, at 4:35 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>
>> Thanks Jacopo for your comments.
>> Let's see what other has to say about workEffortParentId field.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
>> jacopo.cappellato@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have to admit that I don't like very much the workEffortParentId
>>> field
>>> and the way it is used; it would be better if the WorkEffortAssoc
>>> entity was
>>> used every time you have to specify an association between work
>>> effort: in
>>> this way you'll have the ability to set the type ofassociation and
>>> also
>>> validity dates.
>>> Sometimes having denormalized fields is useful (to speed up
>>> queries and
>>> simplify code) but unfortunately the workEffortParentId field is
>>> not used
>>> only for this and it is used a lot, especially by the manufacturing
>>> component, ven when the WorkEffortAssoc would do much more sense.
>>>
>>> My general suggestion would be that of using WorkEffortAssoc as
>>> much as
>>> possible (especially for new code/features).
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 15, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>>>
>>> Can anybody having good insight on WorkEffort module put some
>>> comments to
>>>> understand this scenario ?
>>>> I am also interested to know about it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks !!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Rishi Solanki <rishisolankii@gmail.com
>>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello All,
>>>>>
>>>>> We have *WorkEffort* Entity in OFBiz in which we maintain a
>>>>> recursive
>>>>> relation ship using attribute *parentWorkEffortId.*
>>>>> Here we again have the *WorkEffortAssoc *in which we again
>>>>> relate two
>>>>> workeffort by using the *workEffortFrom *and* workEffortTo.*
>>>>> Now my question is like that, if we have a relationship to
>>>>> relate the
>>>>> workEffortId by it self ( i.e by an another workEffortId ), then
>>>>> why we
>>>>> need
>>>>> the
>>>>> *WorkEffortAssoc *for the same purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Or it is for handeling a different scenario in (OFBiz Work
>>>>> Effort Data
>>>>> Modeling).
>>>>> **
>>>>> *
>>>>> *Thanks and Regards
>>>>> [Rishi Solanki]*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ashish Vijaywargiya
>>>> Indore, India
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indore
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ashish Vijaywargiya
>> Indore, India
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indore
>
Re: Question related to use of WorkEffortAssoc entity in OFBiz.
Posted by David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Just like with Product and ProductCategory going through
ProductCategoryMember, when two WorkEfforts are associated they should
always go through WorkEffortAssoc.
I don't know why the decision was made in the Project Manager
specialpurpose application to use the workEffortParentId, but it
shouldn't have been used there. You'll notice in the workeffort
component and webapp for the child WorkEffort tree it uses the
WorkEffortAssoc, and that is how it should be.
Just as with products and categories the use of this direct fields is
for going in the other direction, in other words when going up the
tree when you want a single WorkEffort record. When going down the
tree you should always use WorkEffortAssoc (just like you would always
use ProductCategoryRollup). When going up the tree and you want the
multiple parents always use WorkEffortAssoc. When you want to specify
one of the various parent WorkEfforts already setup in WorkEffortAssoc
that is the primary parent or the like then use the workEffortParentId.
-David
On Jul 15, 2008, at 4:35 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
> Thanks Jacopo for your comments.
> Let's see what other has to say about workEffortParentId field.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
> jacopo.cappellato@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have to admit that I don't like very much the workEffortParentId
>> field
>> and the way it is used; it would be better if the WorkEffortAssoc
>> entity was
>> used every time you have to specify an association between work
>> effort: in
>> this way you'll have the ability to set the type ofassociation and
>> also
>> validity dates.
>> Sometimes having denormalized fields is useful (to speed up queries
>> and
>> simplify code) but unfortunately the workEffortParentId field is
>> not used
>> only for this and it is used a lot, especially by the manufacturing
>> component, ven when the WorkEffortAssoc would do much more sense.
>>
>> My general suggestion would be that of using WorkEffortAssoc as
>> much as
>> possible (especially for new code/features).
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 15, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>>
>> Can anybody having good insight on WorkEffort module put some
>> comments to
>>> understand this scenario ?
>>> I am also interested to know about it.
>>>
>>> Thanks !!!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Rishi Solanki <rishisolankii@gmail.com
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello All,
>>>>
>>>> We have *WorkEffort* Entity in OFBiz in which we maintain a
>>>> recursive
>>>> relation ship using attribute *parentWorkEffortId.*
>>>> Here we again have the *WorkEffortAssoc *in which we again relate
>>>> two
>>>> workeffort by using the *workEffortFrom *and* workEffortTo.*
>>>> Now my question is like that, if we have a relationship to relate
>>>> the
>>>> workEffortId by it self ( i.e by an another workEffortId ), then
>>>> why we
>>>> need
>>>> the
>>>> *WorkEffortAssoc *for the same purpose.
>>>>
>>>> *Or it is for handeling a different scenario in (OFBiz Work
>>>> Effort Data
>>>> Modeling).
>>>> **
>>>> *
>>>> *Thanks and Regards
>>>> [Rishi Solanki]*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ashish Vijaywargiya
>>> Indore, India
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indore
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ashish Vijaywargiya
> Indore, India
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indore
Re: Question related to use of WorkEffortAssoc entity in OFBiz.
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Hi Ashish,
From: "Ashish Vijaywargiya" <vi...@gmail.com>
> Thanks Jacopo for your comments.
> Let's see what other has to say about workEffortParentId field.
It's crystal clear to me : I agree with Jacopo. Maybe we should even add a comment at each denormalised field (in model) to explain
and make this more clear (maybe it's ealready done I did not check)
Jacques
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
> jacopo.cappellato@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have to admit that I don't like very much the workEffortParentId field
>> and the way it is used; it would be better if the WorkEffortAssoc entity was
>> used every time you have to specify an association between work effort: in
>> this way you'll have the ability to set the type ofassociation and also
>> validity dates.
>> Sometimes having denormalized fields is useful (to speed up queries and
>> simplify code) but unfortunately the workEffortParentId field is not used
>> only for this and it is used a lot, especially by the manufacturing
>> component, ven when the WorkEffortAssoc would do much more sense.
>>
>> My general suggestion would be that of using WorkEffortAssoc as much as
>> possible (especially for new code/features).
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 15, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>>
>> Can anybody having good insight on WorkEffort module put some comments to
>>> understand this scenario ?
>>> I am also interested to know about it.
>>>
>>> Thanks !!!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Rishi Solanki <ri...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello All,
>>>>
>>>> We have *WorkEffort* Entity in OFBiz in which we maintain a recursive
>>>> relation ship using attribute *parentWorkEffortId.*
>>>> Here we again have the *WorkEffortAssoc *in which we again relate two
>>>> workeffort by using the *workEffortFrom *and* workEffortTo.*
>>>> Now my question is like that, if we have a relationship to relate the
>>>> workEffortId by it self ( i.e by an another workEffortId ), then why we
>>>> need
>>>> the
>>>> *WorkEffortAssoc *for the same purpose.
>>>>
>>>> *Or it is for handeling a different scenario in (OFBiz Work Effort Data
>>>> Modeling).
>>>> **
>>>> *
>>>> *Thanks and Regards
>>>> [Rishi Solanki]*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ashish Vijaywargiya
>>> Indore, India
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indore
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ashish Vijaywargiya
> Indore, India
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indore
>
Re: Question related to use of WorkEffortAssoc entity in OFBiz.
Posted by Ashish Vijaywargiya <vi...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Jacopo for your comments.
Let's see what other has to say about workEffortParentId field.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappellato@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to admit that I don't like very much the workEffortParentId field
> and the way it is used; it would be better if the WorkEffortAssoc entity was
> used every time you have to specify an association between work effort: in
> this way you'll have the ability to set the type ofassociation and also
> validity dates.
> Sometimes having denormalized fields is useful (to speed up queries and
> simplify code) but unfortunately the workEffortParentId field is not used
> only for this and it is used a lot, especially by the manufacturing
> component, ven when the WorkEffortAssoc would do much more sense.
>
> My general suggestion would be that of using WorkEffortAssoc as much as
> possible (especially for new code/features).
>
> Jacopo
>
>
>
> On Jul 15, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>
> Can anybody having good insight on WorkEffort module put some comments to
>> understand this scenario ?
>> I am also interested to know about it.
>>
>> Thanks !!!
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Rishi Solanki <ri...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello All,
>>>
>>> We have *WorkEffort* Entity in OFBiz in which we maintain a recursive
>>> relation ship using attribute *parentWorkEffortId.*
>>> Here we again have the *WorkEffortAssoc *in which we again relate two
>>> workeffort by using the *workEffortFrom *and* workEffortTo.*
>>> Now my question is like that, if we have a relationship to relate the
>>> workEffortId by it self ( i.e by an another workEffortId ), then why we
>>> need
>>> the
>>> *WorkEffortAssoc *for the same purpose.
>>>
>>> *Or it is for handeling a different scenario in (OFBiz Work Effort Data
>>> Modeling).
>>> **
>>> *
>>> *Thanks and Regards
>>> [Rishi Solanki]*
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ashish Vijaywargiya
>> Indore, India
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indore
>>
>
>
--
Ashish Vijaywargiya
Indore, India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indore
Re: Question related to use of WorkEffortAssoc entity in OFBiz.
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@gmail.com>.
I have to admit that I don't like very much the workEffortParentId
field and the way it is used; it would be better if the
WorkEffortAssoc entity was used every time you have to specify an
association between work effort: in this way you'll have the ability
to set the type ofassociation and also validity dates.
Sometimes having denormalized fields is useful (to speed up queries
and simplify code) but unfortunately the workEffortParentId field is
not used only for this and it is used a lot, especially by the
manufacturing component, ven when the WorkEffortAssoc would do much
more sense.
My general suggestion would be that of using WorkEffortAssoc as much
as possible (especially for new code/features).
Jacopo
On Jul 15, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
> Can anybody having good insight on WorkEffort module put some
> comments to
> understand this scenario ?
> I am also interested to know about it.
>
> Thanks !!!
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Rishi Solanki <rishisolankii@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> We have *WorkEffort* Entity in OFBiz in which we maintain a recursive
>> relation ship using attribute *parentWorkEffortId.*
>> Here we again have the *WorkEffortAssoc *in which we again relate two
>> workeffort by using the *workEffortFrom *and* workEffortTo.*
>> Now my question is like that, if we have a relationship to relate the
>> workEffortId by it self ( i.e by an another workEffortId ), then
>> why we
>> need
>> the
>> *WorkEffortAssoc *for the same purpose.
>>
>> *Or it is for handeling a different scenario in (OFBiz Work Effort
>> Data
>> Modeling).
>> **
>> *
>> *Thanks and Regards
>> [Rishi Solanki]*
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ashish Vijaywargiya
> Indore, India
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indore