You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com> on 2012/01/02 11:42:30 UTC
Re: Discussion: Potential Data Model Improvements
On 3/20/2011 3:33 AM, David E Jones wrote:
> I'm writing this to start a thread to discuss:
>
> If you could change ANYTHING in the OFBiz data model, what would it be?
>
> To kick this off here are some ideas I've compiled that have come up over the years (many based on feedback from people on this mailing list), or that I thought of recently will working on this topic. You can see them below...
>
> -David
>
> ========================================================
>
> - Move most *Type entities to Enumeration values (update seed data, referring
> entities, remove *Type) (after this remove all remaining hasTable fields)
I have been thinking about this one and I have come up with an idea. I
believe some of the *Type entities were meant to implement the entity
subtypes mentioned in The Data Model Resource book. In some cases, that
distinction is lost over time and the *Type entity contains values that
have nothing to do with subtyping the related entity. So, for the entity
subtype cases we could have something like an EntitySubtype entity, and
use a standard ID field name in all subtyped entities - like
entitySubTypeId. That approach could still be abused, but at least the
original intent of the id field can be preserved.
-Adrian
Re: Discussion: Potential Data Model Improvements
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
On Saturday, January 18, 2014 5:34 PM, pierre.smits@gmail.com wrote
> Indeed, doing cleanups in the data model is a major feat requiring
> awareness, focus and coordination.
> But not putting these improvement issues on the docket (roadmap) will
> ensure that the suggestions (discussion items) done in this thread will be
> overwhelmed by other threads and keep recurring as discussion topics not
> addressed.
> But also the perception of (potential) organisations, that investing in
> (the implementation of) OFBiz is a valid option, will wither and die.
I tend to agree
> After incorporating these improvement issues in the roadmap, associated
> JIRA issues can be created to discuss impact in detail, increase awareness
> of impact and dependencies, and integration can be planned. In stead of
> muddling along on the path where we are now.
We could discuss it again, but IIRW the path is:
1) Discuss ideas/concepts, define/refine requirements/data-models on dev ML (simply because it's faster and easier for most, if not all of us, at the ASF Jira and Confluence can be slow...)
2) Write them in Confluence
3) Open corresponding Jira issues (grouping them can help, how to group depends but sub-tasks sounds easier to me)
> If the community would embark on the endeavour regarding the cleanup the
> data model, services and ui aspects, it would warrant a new branch of trunk
> leading to new version of OFBiz.
Premature, we should before estimate who wants to do what, the bottleneck as always been the manpower.
I noted we should prune https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/New+Features+Roadmap+-+Living+Document
Future is still not a priority to me (hopefully soon). I'm still in cleaning and securing stuff.
> I believe that this could also recharge the community to interact more and
> even grow. Otherwise this project will not live long enough to celebrate a
> second decade.
It would be a pity.
Things like node.js and AKKA are quickly gaining interest (for good reasons).
Still all those lack what OFBiz framework has around it (even is not perfect).
Jacques
>
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:04 AM, David E. Jones <de...@me.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Doing significant data model cleanups and changes is a LOT of work with a
>> large code base and user community. All code that uses the data structure
>> needs to be changes, and accommodations are needed for deprecating the old
>> entity or fields and migrating data to the new ones. So yes, to the point
>> Jacques made, it's not likely short-term and without significant investment
>> and coordination with others in the community it is not really likely
>> long-term either.
>>
>> For years I built up a list of changes that would be nice to do in OFBiz
>> itself, but so many are not really feasible. There may still be some of
>> them worth doing, so for some ideas to consider here are my change notes
>> for the Mantle data model:
>>
>> https://github.com/jonesde/mantle/blob/master/mantle-udm/Planning.txt
>>
>> At this point there are lots of generic services and end-to-end automated
>> tests that use many of these changes to the data structures so they are
>> pretty well vetted and validated and not just theoretical like when this
>> thread started a couple years ago. One of the benefits to many of these
>> changes is that not only is the data model smaller and cleaner, but it
>> makes it possible to simplify or eliminate large amounts of logic layer
>> code.
>>
>> For OFBiz, along the lines of the reasons mentioned above, that would
>> involve quite a few code changes but maybe the best way to look at it is
>> that this is the main reason to do the data model changes (ie simplifying
>> and eliminating code) as opposed to just changing the data model for the
>> sake of the data model itself.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 17, 2014, at 4:57 AM, Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think it's still alive, but I bet it will not be short-term...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> On Friday, January 17, 2014 12:34 PM, pierre.smits@gmail.com wrote
>>>> Is this subject still valid? And wouldn't it be great to have one (or some)
>>>> of the subjects on the (short-term) roadmap?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>
>>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
>>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
>>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>>>> Services and Retail & Trade
>>>> http://www.orrtiz.com
Re: Discussion: Potential Data Model Improvements
Posted by Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>.
Indeed, doing cleanups in the data model is a major feat requiring
awareness, focus and coordination.
But not putting these improvement issues on the docket (roadmap) will
ensure that the suggestions (discussion items) done in this thread will be
overwhelmed by other threads and keep recurring as discussion topics not
addressed.
But also the perception of (potential) organisations, that investing in
(the implementation of) OFBiz is a valid option, will wither and die.
After incorporating these improvement issues in the roadmap, associated
JIRA issues can be created to discuss impact in detail, increase awareness
of impact and dependencies, and integration can be planned. In stead of
muddling along on the path where we are now.
If the community would embark on the endeavour regarding the cleanup the
data model, services and ui aspects, it would warrant a new branch of trunk
leading to new version of OFBiz.
I believe that this could also recharge the community to interact more and
even grow. Otherwise this project will not live long enough to celebrate a
second decade.
Pierre Smits
*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:04 AM, David E. Jones <de...@me.com> wrote:
>
> Doing significant data model cleanups and changes is a LOT of work with a
> large code base and user community. All code that uses the data structure
> needs to be changes, and accommodations are needed for deprecating the old
> entity or fields and migrating data to the new ones. So yes, to the point
> Jacques made, it's not likely short-term and without significant investment
> and coordination with others in the community it is not really likely
> long-term either.
>
> For years I built up a list of changes that would be nice to do in OFBiz
> itself, but so many are not really feasible. There may still be some of
> them worth doing, so for some ideas to consider here are my change notes
> for the Mantle data model:
>
> https://github.com/jonesde/mantle/blob/master/mantle-udm/Planning.txt
>
> At this point there are lots of generic services and end-to-end automated
> tests that use many of these changes to the data structures so they are
> pretty well vetted and validated and not just theoretical like when this
> thread started a couple years ago. One of the benefits to many of these
> changes is that not only is the data model smaller and cleaner, but it
> makes it possible to simplify or eliminate large amounts of logic layer
> code.
>
> For OFBiz, along the lines of the reasons mentioned above, that would
> involve quite a few code changes but maybe the best way to look at it is
> that this is the main reason to do the data model changes (ie simplifying
> and eliminating code) as opposed to just changing the data model for the
> sake of the data model itself.
>
> -David
>
>
>
> On Jan 17, 2014, at 4:57 AM, Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I think it's still alive, but I bet it will not be short-term...
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> > On Friday, January 17, 2014 12:34 PM, pierre.smits@gmail.com wrote
> >> Is this subject still valid? And wouldn't it be great to have one (or
> some)
> >> of the subjects on the (short-term) roadmap?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Pierre Smits
> >>
> >> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> >> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> >> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> >> Services and Retail & Trade
> >> http://www.orrtiz.com
>
>
Re: Discussion: Potential Data Model Improvements
Posted by "David E. Jones" <de...@me.com>.
Doing significant data model cleanups and changes is a LOT of work with a large code base and user community. All code that uses the data structure needs to be changes, and accommodations are needed for deprecating the old entity or fields and migrating data to the new ones. So yes, to the point Jacques made, it's not likely short-term and without significant investment and coordination with others in the community it is not really likely long-term either.
For years I built up a list of changes that would be nice to do in OFBiz itself, but so many are not really feasible. There may still be some of them worth doing, so for some ideas to consider here are my change notes for the Mantle data model:
https://github.com/jonesde/mantle/blob/master/mantle-udm/Planning.txt
At this point there are lots of generic services and end-to-end automated tests that use many of these changes to the data structures so they are pretty well vetted and validated and not just theoretical like when this thread started a couple years ago. One of the benefits to many of these changes is that not only is the data model smaller and cleaner, but it makes it possible to simplify or eliminate large amounts of logic layer code.
For OFBiz, along the lines of the reasons mentioned above, that would involve quite a few code changes but maybe the best way to look at it is that this is the main reason to do the data model changes (ie simplifying and eliminating code) as opposed to just changing the data model for the sake of the data model itself.
-David
On Jan 17, 2014, at 4:57 AM, Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com> wrote:
> I think it's still alive, but I bet it will not be short-term...
>
> Jacques
>
> On Friday, January 17, 2014 12:34 PM, pierre.smits@gmail.com wrote
>> Is this subject still valid? And wouldn't it be great to have one (or some)
>> of the subjects on the (short-term) roadmap?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Pierre Smits
>>
>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>> Services and Retail & Trade
>> http://www.orrtiz.com
Re: Discussion: Potential Data Model Improvements
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
I think it's still alive, but I bet it will not be short-term...
Jacques
On Friday, January 17, 2014 12:34 PM, pierre.smits@gmail.com wrote
> Is this subject still valid? And wouldn't it be great to have one (or some)
> of the subjects on the (short-term) roadmap?
>
> Regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
Re: Discussion: Potential Data Model Improvements
Posted by Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>.
Is this subject still valid? And wouldn't it be great to have one (or some)
of the subjects on the (short-term) roadmap?
Regards,
Pierre Smits
*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com