Hi Gareth,

Yes, this is how it's supposed to be handled in OFBiz from start, see my answer to Mathieu Lirzin in this thread: https://markmail.org/message/wypy4tuhyyv5bugw


Le 17/04/2018 à 12:04, Gareth Carter a écrit :
Hi all

This would certainly cause havoc for us! So I would propose not to change them!

I certainly do agree the names do not make sense so rather than rename, could a 
new type of entity be created that can reference existing entities? So both old 
and new entities would work on the same physical table?
Gareth Carter
Software Development Analyst
Stannah Management Services Ltd
IT Department
01264 364311

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajesh Mallah [mailto:mallah.raj...@gmail.com]
Sent: 12 April 2018 2:47 PM
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: Confusing entity names


is it really worth taking the risk , renaming generally wrecks havoc!
specially considering OFBiz which have 100's of entities and dozens named 

however i agree  with the proposer that they are not named properly.

secondly , Is the current state of test suites or integration checks touch 
scenarios that use the entities in question.

presence of test suites gives more confidence for undertaking such changes.

May be once we have these it shall be a better time to fix things that aint' 


On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Michael Brohl <michael.br...@ecomify.de>

Hi Suraj,

thanks for your proposal.

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

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

This email is intended only for the above addressee. It may contain privileged 
information. If you are not the addressee you must not copy, distribute, 
disclose or use any of the information in it. If you have received it in error, 
please delete it and notify the sender.

Stannah Lift Holdings Ltd registered No. 686996, Stannah Management Services 
Ltd registered No. 2483693, Stannah Lift Services Ltd registered No. 1189799, 
Stannah Microlifts Ltd registered No. 964804, Stannah Lifts Ltd registered No. 
1189836, Stannah Stairlifts Ltd registered No. 1401451, Global Upholstery 
Solutions Ltd registered No. 02452728.

All registered offices at Watt Close, East Portway, Andover, Hampshire, SP10 
3SD, England.

All Registered in England and Wales.

Reply via email to