Hi all, Some services already expire rather than delete, so it's not as bad as Jacques suggests.
One example is deletePaymentMethod ( https://github.com/apache/ofbiz-framework/blob/5fa047abd5c0f96d81cd3f9c9547564abe7fe369/applications/accounting/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/accounting/payment/PaymentMethodServices.java#L98 ). I would be in favour of changing the names of these services to say "expire" instead of "delete", but that's a big change and we would need to think carefully about what might be disrupted by that. Cheers Paul On 2 August 2017 at 00:34, Jacques Le Roux <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > After a 1st discussion with Deepak at OFBIZ-9185, we had another at > OFBIZ-9543. > > We claim that we should not remove entities records because of auditing. > But we have at 157 services with names starting with "remove" and 538 > starting with "delete" > > I suggest that we remove as much as possible of these services and have > only expire services for those which support expire (ie have from and thru > dates). > > For instance I was curious about deleteParty, but what it currently does > is only returning the "partyservices.cannot_delete_party_not_implemented" > label. This is pre Apache era (ie there for 10+ years)! > > In OFBIZ-9543 Deepak rightly suggested that we keep delete services for > Assoc kind of entities. But definitely remove delete service for entity > like Party, WorkEffort, Product, etc those have n number of foreign key > constraints... > > What do you think, other ideas? > > Jacques > > -- Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd PO Box 2773 Cheltenham Vic 3192 Australia Phone: +61 3 9585 6788 Web: http://www.coherentsoftware.com.au/ Email: [email protected]
