Re: Difference between "id" and "id-ne" field type

Hi Aditya, Done, please check Jacques Le 08/05/2017 à 11:49, Aditya Sharma a écrit : I have created the ticket for it OFBIZ-9351 . Jacques, Can you please elaborate some more on it. When replacing id-ne alike fields by id alike we should

Re: Difference between "id" and "id-ne" field type

I have created the ticket for it OFBIZ-9351 . Jacques, Can you please elaborate some more on it. When replacing id-ne alike fields by id alike we should add the "not-null" > attribute. For those fields where it requires not-empty fields

Re: Difference between "id" and "id-ne" field type

Please Aditya create a Jira for that. Something I forgot to clearly mention. When replacing id-ne alike fields by id alike we should add the "not-null" attribute. Jacques Le 08/05/2017 à 08:32, Aditya Sharma a écrit : Thanks Scott for the link :) It completely makes sense to me now with

Re: Difference between "id" and "id-ne" field type

+1 On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Deepak Dixit < deepak.di...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > +1 > make sense. > > > Thanks Aditya, > Feel free to open ticket for this change. > > Thanks & Regards > -- > Deepak Dixit > www.hotwaxsystems.com > > On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >

Re: Difference between "id" and "id-ne" field type

+1 make sense. Thanks Aditya, Feel free to open ticket for this change. Thanks & Regards -- Deepak Dixit www.hotwaxsystems.com On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > +1 > > Jacques > > > > Le 08/05/2017 à 08:32, Aditya Sharma a écrit : > >>

Re: Difference between "id" and "id-ne" field type

+1 Jacques Le 08/05/2017 à 08:32, Aditya Sharma a écrit : Thanks Scott for the link :) It completely makes sense to me now with what David said there. They are intentionally not used in other parts of the project as validation is best in the logic layer, and not in the data layer If

Re: Difference between "id" and "id-ne" field type

Thanks Scott for the link :) It completely makes sense to me now with what David said there. They are intentionally not used in other parts of the project as validation > is > best in the logic layer, and not in the data layer > If those field types serve no purpose then it is better to remove

Re: Difference between "id" and "id-ne" field type

Thanks Guys for the links, I also agree we can now remove the useless id-ne, id-long-ne and id-vlong-ne field-types (ie replace by corresponding id field-types) We also need to clean the related embedded documentation. Like for instance for "not-null" in fieldtypemodel.xsd For the rest let it

Re: Difference between "id" and "id-ne" field type

Chances are the field type was left for backwards compatibility. I'm ok with it being removed though. Regards Scott On 4 May 2017 at 15:32, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: > Hmmm I was actually rethinking about this, and this reminds me somewhat of > the "Bounded context"

Re: Difference between "id" and "id-ne" field type

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

Re: Difference between "id" and "id-ne" field type

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 wrote: > Hi Scott, > > As there is

Re: Difference between "id" and "id-ne" field type

Please help yourself: http://ofbiz.apache.org/mailing-lists.html Jacques Le 03/05/2017 à 13:25, William Cunningham a écrit : To: user@ofbiz.apache.org Could you remove me from the mailing list? Thanks Bill William Cunningham 15 Bernard Avenue Barrington, RI

Re: Difference between "id" and "id-ne" field type

To: user@ofbiz.apache.org Could you remove me from the mailing list? Thanks Bill William Cunningham 15 Bernard Avenue Barrington, RI 02806 401-575-9164 william.cunning...@live.com On May 3, 2017, at 1:42 AM, Aditya Sharma

Re: Difference between "id" and "id-ne" field type

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

Re: Difference between "id" and "id-ne" field type

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

Re: Difference between "id" and "id-ne" field type

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" wrote: > I don't have the historical context, so

Re: Difference between "id" and "id-ne" field type

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