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 2014/08/29 15:02:06 UTC
Discussion: Add "Implements" to Entity definitions
One feature I would like to see in the entity definition is an
"Implements" attribute. The attribute contains an entity name, and it
describes an entity that is to be extended as a NEW entity.
I suggested something like this back in 2004, and the motivation was
similar to the discussion here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5740
Sometimes all you need is a date range entity, but your only choice is
WorkEffort - with all of its baggage.
So, we could do something like this:
DateRange
---------
dateRangeId, id-ne*
fromDate, date-time
thruDate, date-time
estimatedFromDate, date-time
estimatedThruDate, date-time
WorkEffort (implements DateRange)
------------------
workEffortTypeId, id
currentStatusId, id
etc...
The WorkEffort entity definition would look something like this:
<entity entity-name="WorkEffort" implements="DateRange" ...>
<field name="workEffortId" implements="dateRangeId" />
...
</entity>
What do you think?
--
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
Re: Discussion: Add "Implements" to Entity definitions
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Then I think everybody should like it
Jacques
Le 29/08/2014 17:12, Adrian Crum a écrit :
> I envision implementing it so it is compatible with existing code, and then see where people take it.
>
> Adrian Crum
> Sandglass Software
> www.sandglass-software.com
>
> On 8/29/2014 3:00 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> That sounds like a good idea to me. Do you envision a lot of OOTB
>> changes or is it mostly WorkEffort for now?
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> Le 29/08/2014 15:02, Adrian Crum a écrit :
>>> One feature I would like to see in the entity definition is an
>>> "Implements" attribute. The attribute contains an entity name, and it
>>> describes an entity that is to be extended as a NEW entity.
>>>
>>> I suggested something like this back in 2004, and the motivation was
>>> similar to the discussion here:
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5740
>>>
>>> Sometimes all you need is a date range entity, but your only choice is
>>> WorkEffort - with all of its baggage.
>>>
>>> So, we could do something like this:
>>>
>>>
>>> DateRange
>>> ---------
>>> dateRangeId, id-ne*
>>> fromDate, date-time
>>> thruDate, date-time
>>> estimatedFromDate, date-time
>>> estimatedThruDate, date-time
>>>
>>>
>>> WorkEffort (implements DateRange)
>>> ------------------
>>> workEffortTypeId, id
>>> currentStatusId, id
>>> etc...
>>>
>>> The WorkEffort entity definition would look something like this:
>>>
>>> <entity entity-name="WorkEffort" implements="DateRange" ...>
>>> <field name="workEffortId" implements="dateRangeId" />
>>> ...
>>> </entity>
>>>
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>
Re: Discussion: Add "Implements" to Entity definitions
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
I envision implementing it so it is compatible with existing code, and
then see where people take it.
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 8/29/2014 3:00 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> That sounds like a good idea to me. Do you envision a lot of OOTB
> changes or is it mostly WorkEffort for now?
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 29/08/2014 15:02, Adrian Crum a écrit :
>> One feature I would like to see in the entity definition is an
>> "Implements" attribute. The attribute contains an entity name, and it
>> describes an entity that is to be extended as a NEW entity.
>>
>> I suggested something like this back in 2004, and the motivation was
>> similar to the discussion here:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5740
>>
>> Sometimes all you need is a date range entity, but your only choice is
>> WorkEffort - with all of its baggage.
>>
>> So, we could do something like this:
>>
>>
>> DateRange
>> ---------
>> dateRangeId, id-ne*
>> fromDate, date-time
>> thruDate, date-time
>> estimatedFromDate, date-time
>> estimatedThruDate, date-time
>>
>>
>> WorkEffort (implements DateRange)
>> ------------------
>> workEffortTypeId, id
>> currentStatusId, id
>> etc...
>>
>> The WorkEffort entity definition would look something like this:
>>
>> <entity entity-name="WorkEffort" implements="DateRange" ...>
>> <field name="workEffortId" implements="dateRangeId" />
>> ...
>> </entity>
>>
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
Re: Discussion: Add "Implements" to Entity definitions
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
That sounds like a good idea to me. Do you envision a lot of OOTB changes or is it mostly WorkEffort for now?
Jacques
Le 29/08/2014 15:02, Adrian Crum a écrit :
> One feature I would like to see in the entity definition is an "Implements" attribute. The attribute contains an entity name, and it describes an
> entity that is to be extended as a NEW entity.
>
> I suggested something like this back in 2004, and the motivation was similar to the discussion here:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5740
>
> Sometimes all you need is a date range entity, but your only choice is WorkEffort - with all of its baggage.
>
> So, we could do something like this:
>
>
> DateRange
> ---------
> dateRangeId, id-ne*
> fromDate, date-time
> thruDate, date-time
> estimatedFromDate, date-time
> estimatedThruDate, date-time
>
>
> WorkEffort (implements DateRange)
> ------------------
> workEffortTypeId, id
> currentStatusId, id
> etc...
>
> The WorkEffort entity definition would look something like this:
>
> <entity entity-name="WorkEffort" implements="DateRange" ...>
> <field name="workEffortId" implements="dateRangeId" />
> ...
> </entity>
>
>
> What do you think?
>