+1. Best Regards, -- *Rishi Solanki* | Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development HotWax Systems <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part 2, Near Brilliant Convention Center, Indore, M.P 452010 Linkedin: *Rishi Solanki* <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rishi-solanki-62271b7/> Direct: +91-9893287847
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 4:46 PM Jacques Le Roux <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > Jacques > > Le 09/04/2019 à 10:59, Suraj Khurana a écrit : > > +1. > > > > Technically, as per Pierre, we should also mark this field as encrypted > in > > the entity definition. > > > > -- > > Best Regards, > > Suraj Khurana > > TECHNICAL CONSULTANT > > mobile: +91 9669750002 > > email: [email protected] > > *www.hotwax.co <http://www.hotwax.co/>* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 2:08 PM Pierre Smits <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Although I am inclined to agree with having the options come from > >> appropriate records/values in the Enumeration entity, I must caution > about > >> how the final solution will be implemented in our code base. We all know > >> that this falls in the category of sensitive data which has come under a > >> tighter scrutiny due to GDPR and security breaches. > >> > >> Such privacy sensitive element should be implemented in tighter > permissions > >> applied than we generally apply to screens/forms/fields etc. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Pierre Smits > >> > >> *Apache Trafodion <https://trafodion.apache.org>, Vice President* > >> *Apache Directory <https://directory.apache.org>, PMC Member* > >> Apache Incubator <https://incubator.apache.org>, committer > >> *Apache OFBiz <https://ofbiz.apache.org>, contributor (without > privileges) > >> since 2008* > >> Apache Steve <https://steve.apache.org>, committer > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 10:19 AM Aditya Sharma <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> +1 > >>> > >>> Best Regards, > >>> Aditya Sharma, > >>> http://ofbiz.apache.org > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:09 PM Swapnil M Mane <[email protected] > > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> +1 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> - Best Regards, > >>>> Swapnil M Mane, > >>>> ofbiz.apache.org > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 12:51 PM Suraj Khurana < > [email protected] > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hello, > >>>>> > >>>>> Currently, *maritalStatus* is managed as an indicator (Y/N) in > >> *Person* > >>>>> entity. I think we can enhance it and make it derived from > >>> *Enumeration* > >>>>> pattern. > >>>>> > >>>>> *Classification of legal marital status* > >>>>> > >>>>> - 1 - Married (and not separated) ... > >>>>> - 2 - Widowed (including living common law) ... > >>>>> - 3 - Separated (and not Divorced) ... > >>>>> - 4 - Divorced (including living common law) ... > >>>>> - 5 - Single (including living common law) > >>>>> > >>>>> Please share your thoughts. > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Best regards, > >>>>> Suraj Khurana > >>>>> TECHNICAL CONSULTANT > >>>>> mobile: +91 9669750002 > >>>>> email: [email protected] > >>>>> *www.hotwax.co <http://www.hotwax.co/>* > >>>>> >
