Hi Suraj,

thanks for your proposal.

Looking at it in isolation, it seems a good idea to just rename these entities.

Having the users in mind, I'm not sure if this is worth the need for data migrations they have to do if they want to stay up-to-date.

I'm not sure where the original names came from. When I'm in the office tomorrow, I'll consult the Data Model Resource Book. I'll be back then.

Thanks and regards,


Am 10.04.18 um 13:24 schrieb Suraj Khurana:

There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.

    - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
    contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
    - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type, it
    just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
    re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code

I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self explanatory',
this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
this topic.

Please share your opinions on this.


Thanks and Regards,
*Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
*HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
Cell phone: +91 96697-50002

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Reply via email to