this is exactly what this proposal solves because both instances will still be there with different version numbers...
never mind....do not have the time to pursue this. On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 09:54 -0800, Adrian Crum wrote: > I have a problem with it too. > > Anyone who is trying to upgrade from a revision that has more than two > versions of the same table would need to do it incrementally anyway. > > -Adrian > > David E Jones wrote: > > > > I have a pretty big problem with this actually. > > > > First: changes to pks should be pretty limited, and when done should be > > carefully reviewed. These are a significant difficulty when upgrading > > and should never be done lightly or without looking at other alternatives. > > > > Second: when we "deprecate" an entity the new entity should have a > > totally different name, and NEVER be the same as the old entity. That > > means that if the new one were deprecated, it could have "Old" added as > > a prefix without conflicting with the entity that it replaced. > > > > -David > > > > > > On Nov 24, 2008, at 2:12 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: > > > >> I have added a proposal for change as a comment to the document at: > >> > >> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBTECH/General+Entity+Overview > >> > >> If there are no objections i will incorporate it in the text. > >> > >> -- > >> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive prices > >> > > > > -- Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive prices
