Bob Morley wrote:
Adrian Crum-2 wrote:
I don't know if this is the best approach, but it is the one I use.
Instead of extending the entity, I create a separate entity that contains
the additional fields. Then I connect the original entity and the new
entity together with a view entity. The CRUD
th the "hasTable" attribute set to Y. One
enhancement that would be nice is the ability to have Ofbiz understand
entity inheritance and perform table joins under the covers (aka standard
ORM tools like Hibernate).
--
View this message in context:
http://n4.nabble.com/What-s-the-best-approac
e best approach for custom fields: attributes vs extending
> entities?
> To: "user"
> Date: Thursday, April 1, 2010, 4:16 AM
> Different customers want to store
> different kinds of data on their
> agreements and its items. For us, the easiest way is to
> extend the
&g
Different customers want to store different kinds of data on their
agreements and its items. For us, the easiest way is to extend the
entities and add new fields to the forms. The drawback is that the
entity and forms will end up containing all custom fields. The other
option is to use attributes.
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/extending-entities-tp24532076p24532076.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
ntity definitions other than making a plain
copy of the party and partyRelationship entities in my own application?
Many thanks...
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/extending-entities-tp24532076p24532076.html
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
