Keep deleteProductionRunRoutingTask?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Keep deleteProductionRunRoutingTask?

Jacques Le Roux
Administrator
Hi,

Please give your opinion on OFBIZ-9568 before I continue on OFBIZ-9185

Thanks

Jacques

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Keep deleteProductionRunRoutingTask?

Vaibhav Jain
Hello Jacques,

Just for easy reference

>>Please give your opinion on OFBIZ-9568
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-9568>before I continue on
OFBIZ-9185 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-9185>

Thanks & Regards

Vaibhav Jain
Hotwax Systems,
[hidden email]

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Please give your opinion on OFBIZ-9568 before I continue on OFBIZ-9185
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Keep deleteProductionRunRoutingTask?

Nicolas Malin-2
In reply to this post by Jacques Le Roux
Hello Jacques,

It's a good example why I explained that delete is interesting in some
cases.

We implemented a process with template workeffort where an operator
create a production run from the templating and delete some task that is
not needed before start. In this context, I have no reason to keep these
workeffort on the database.

I'm in favor to keep these services as simple as possible and in
coherence with the create service with information that the delete
service doesn't manage all foreign key and we need prepare the delete
before. For all other case, expire will own friend :)

Nicolas

Le 10/08/2017 à 11:56, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Please give your opinion on OFBIZ-9568 before I continue on OFBIZ-9185
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Keep deleteProductionRunRoutingTask?

Jacques Le Roux
Administrator
Hi Nicolas, All,

Nicolas: are you speaking about deleteProductionRunRoutingTask (OFBIZ-9568), deleteWorkEffort (OFBIZ-9185) or both ?

I think you answered only about deleteWorkEffort and then I agree.

I was also reluctant to remove it. But then we need to define what would be it's minimal implementation.
Because as Deepak said, when you want to delete a workeffort with relations with other entities (hence FKs); then you need to delete those other
entities before.
And in some case it can be quite hard (I try to generalise from this case).

I wonder if a new simpler service like deleteSimpleWorkeffort would not be appropriate. A simple workEffort would not have any relations with any
entities, else the call would be rejected by this new service.
Because generalising seems hard, even more when considering all entities, like eg OrderHeader
see https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBENDUSER/How+to+delete+tuples+added+to+test+a+setup and also related thread https://s.apache.org/DCiI

This time I want to get to some action :D

Jacques

Le 11/08/2017 à 11:20, Nicolas Malin a écrit :

> Hello Jacques,
>
> It's a good example why I explained that delete is interesting in some cases.
>
> We implemented a process with template workeffort where an operator create a production run from the templating and delete some task that is not
> needed before start. In this context, I have no reason to keep these workeffort on the database.
>
> I'm in favor to keep these services as simple as possible and in coherence with the create service with information that the delete service doesn't
> manage all foreign key and we need prepare the delete before. For all other case, expire will own friend :)
>
> Nicolas
>
> Le 10/08/2017 à 11:56, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please give your opinion on OFBIZ-9568 before I continue on OFBIZ-9185
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Keep deleteProductionRunRoutingTask?

Jacques Le Roux
Administrator
Also for beginners we have this advice in FAQ...

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/FAQ+-+Tips+-+Tricks+-+Cookbook+-+HowTo#FAQ-Tips-Tricks-Cookbook-HowTo-obsolete

Jacques


Le 11/08/2017 à 17:21, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

> Hi Nicolas, All,
>
> Nicolas: are you speaking about deleteProductionRunRoutingTask (OFBIZ-9568), deleteWorkEffort (OFBIZ-9185) or both ?
>
> I think you answered only about deleteWorkEffort and then I agree.
>
> I was also reluctant to remove it. But then we need to define what would be it's minimal implementation.
> Because as Deepak said, when you want to delete a workeffort with relations with other entities (hence FKs); then you need to delete those other
> entities before.
> And in some case it can be quite hard (I try to generalise from this case).
>
> I wonder if a new simpler service like deleteSimpleWorkeffort would not be appropriate. A simple workEffort would not have any relations with any
> entities, else the call would be rejected by this new service.
> Because generalising seems hard, even more when considering all entities, like eg OrderHeader
> see https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBENDUSER/How+to+delete+tuples+added+to+test+a+setup and also related thread https://s.apache.org/DCiI
>
> This time I want to get to some action :D
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 11/08/2017 à 11:20, Nicolas Malin a écrit :
>> Hello Jacques,
>>
>> It's a good example why I explained that delete is interesting in some cases.
>>
>> We implemented a process with template workeffort where an operator create a production run from the templating and delete some task that is not
>> needed before start. In this context, I have no reason to keep these workeffort on the database.
>>
>> I'm in favor to keep these services as simple as possible and in coherence with the create service with information that the delete service doesn't
>> manage all foreign key and we need prepare the delete before. For all other case, expire will own friend :)
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>> Le 10/08/2017 à 11:56, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Please give your opinion on OFBIZ-9568 before I continue on OFBIZ-9185
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Keep deleteProductionRunRoutingTask?

Gil Portenseigne
In reply to this post by Jacques Le Roux
Hi Jacques,

In my opinion when I read deleteWorkEffort i'm expecting an entity-auto
service, that will remove my workEffort entry from database.

In this case it's removing the workEffort and all related entity, so i
propose to rename the service to removeWorkEffortAndRelated.

This service is to be used when i really don't care about related data.

Then we could replace deleteProductionRunRoutingTask with
removeWorkEffortAndRelated service...

The question remains, should we still define a deleteWorkEffort
entity-auto service ? I'm not sure that will be useful, but that's not
costly to have one defined...

Gil



On 11/08/2017 17:21, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Hi Nicolas, All,
>
> Nicolas: are you speaking about deleteProductionRunRoutingTask
> (OFBIZ-9568), deleteWorkEffort (OFBIZ-9185) or both ?
>
> I think you answered only about deleteWorkEffort and then I agree.
>
> I was also reluctant to remove it. But then we need to define what
> would be it's minimal implementation.
> Because as Deepak said, when you want to delete a workeffort with
> relations with other entities (hence FKs); then you need to delete
> those other entities before.
> And in some case it can be quite hard (I try to generalise from this
> case).
>
> I wonder if a new simpler service like deleteSimpleWorkeffort would
> not be appropriate. A simple workEffort would not have any relations
> with any entities, else the call would be rejected by this new service.
> Because generalising seems hard, even more when considering all
> entities, like eg OrderHeader
> see
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBENDUSER/How+to+delete+tuples+added+to+test+a+setup 
> and also related thread https://s.apache.org/DCiI
>
> This time I want to get to some action :D
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 11/08/2017 à 11:20, Nicolas Malin a écrit :
>> Hello Jacques,
>>
>> It's a good example why I explained that delete is interesting in
>> some cases.
>>
>> We implemented a process with template workeffort where an operator
>> create a production run from the templating and delete some task that
>> is not needed before start. In this context, I have no reason to keep
>> these workeffort on the database.
>>
>> I'm in favor to keep these services as simple as possible and in
>> coherence with the create service with information that the delete
>> service doesn't manage all foreign key and we need prepare the delete
>> before. For all other case, expire will own friend :)
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>> Le 10/08/2017 à 11:56, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Please give your opinion on OFBIZ-9568 before I continue on OFBIZ-9185
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Keep deleteProductionRunRoutingTask?

Jacques Le Roux
Administrator
Thanks Gil,

Inline


Le 14/08/2017 à 15:50, gil portenseigne a écrit :
> Hi Jacques,
>
> In my opinion when I read deleteWorkEffort i'm expecting an entity-auto service, that will remove my workEffort entry from database.
+1

>
> In this case it's removing the workEffort and all related entity, so i propose to rename the service to removeWorkEffortAndRelated.
+1

>
> This service is to be used when i really don't care about related data.
deleteWorkEffort indeed, misnamed

>
> Then we could replace deleteProductionRunRoutingTask with removeWorkEffortAndRelated service...

Makes sense

>
> The question remains, should we still define a deleteWorkEffort entity-auto service ? I'm not sure that will be useful, but that's not costly to
> have one defined...
It would fail most of the time which is misleading.
But I understand Nicolas's POV and I guess we need to rather test at service start if FKs exist and return a clear  error message when they exist .

Jacques

>
> Gil
>
>
>
> On 11/08/2017 17:21, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> Hi Nicolas, All,
>>
>> Nicolas: are you speaking about deleteProductionRunRoutingTask (OFBIZ-9568), deleteWorkEffort (OFBIZ-9185) or both ?
>>
>> I think you answered only about deleteWorkEffort and then I agree.
>>
>> I was also reluctant to remove it. But then we need to define what would be it's minimal implementation.
>> Because as Deepak said, when you want to delete a workeffort with relations with other entities (hence FKs); then you need to delete those other
>> entities before.
>> And in some case it can be quite hard (I try to generalise from this case).
>>
>> I wonder if a new simpler service like deleteSimpleWorkeffort would not be appropriate. A simple workEffort would not have any relations with any
>> entities, else the call would be rejected by this new service.
>> Because generalising seems hard, even more when considering all entities, like eg OrderHeader
>> see https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBENDUSER/How+to+delete+tuples+added+to+test+a+setup and also related thread
>> https://s.apache.org/DCiI
>>
>> This time I want to get to some action :D
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> Le 11/08/2017 à 11:20, Nicolas Malin a écrit :
>>> Hello Jacques,
>>>
>>> It's a good example why I explained that delete is interesting in some cases.
>>>
>>> We implemented a process with template workeffort where an operator create a production run from the templating and delete some task that is not
>>> needed before start. In this context, I have no reason to keep these workeffort on the database.
>>>
>>> I'm in favor to keep these services as simple as possible and in coherence with the create service with information that the delete service
>>> doesn't manage all foreign key and we need prepare the delete before. For all other case, expire will own friend :)
>>>
>>> Nicolas
>>>
>>> Le 10/08/2017 à 11:56, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Please give your opinion on OFBIZ-9568 before I continue on OFBIZ-9185
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Loading...