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 via email to