Regards Scott
On 4/09/2009, at 1:57 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Actually I did not write this stuff an I have no idea why this choice has been made. But I came to this conclusion since it sounded logical, do we really need to track such changes ? Maybe in case of error though (but tracking errors like that is a bit Stalinian isn'it ? Errare human est...)Jacques From: "Scott Gray" <[email protected]>Personally I don't think it should be allowed to delete a product from a category, why not just expire it and maintain the history?Regards Scott On 4/09/2009, at 1:16 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:Please use rather user ML for such questions, see why here : http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/yAk#MailingLists-DesignanddevelopmentList:[email protected]Also consider some associations, say a product with a category : no needs to track for an audit on such things. Hence removing a product from a category is possible...Thanks Jacques From: "buzlite" <[email protected]>Hmmm....this is a bit confusing. There are mentions of a need for a trail for auditing purposes. Yet there are several places in ofbiz that permit a user to actually remove items. Was the deletion added in for some specificpurpose of is the auditing related focus been relaxed? Or have thecommunity decided to let the user decide whether or not to delete certainitems. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/deleting-features-tp25239836p25274587.html Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
