Well for what is important there is already a changelog model - party_status, party_name_history.
If something else is needed we should we create it on demand. -- Deyan On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 14:57 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote: > then if that ibnformaton is that important, should it not follow the > changelog model for audit, like changeprice? > > Deyan Tsvetanov sent the following on 7/19/2010 9:01 AM: > > Well I don't agree. > > > > A classic example of entities relation is party<- person. > > > > One could update only the Person entity - change the lastName. So we > > update updated_by field only of the Person entity. > > > > One could update only the party entity - change the status - so we > > update updated_by field only of the Party entity. > > > > I actually can not think of a table / entity that might not need the two > > fields. > > > > Even if we take ENUMERATION_TYPE - it currently has created_stamp_tx and > > updated_stamp_tx - why should it not have updated_by and created_by as > > well ? > > > > -- Deyan > > > > On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 08:50 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote: > >> an entity has a relationship with another entity. > >> so if the main entity is updated those in the relationship will be tied > >> to the main entity and don't need the two fields. > >> > >> yes those that are only updated by person should have the two fields, in > >> my opinion. > >> > >> Deyan Tsvetanov sent the following on 7/19/2010 8:42 AM: > >>>> Many entities data is not created without a dependence on another one > >>>> so those should not need those two fields. > >>> > >>> This one i didn't understand :) > >>> > >>> In general data is being updated either by a person ( user or an > >>> administrator or a consultant ) or by a process ( the system account ). > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 08:29 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote: > >>>> there are many operations that are generated by the system levels, such > >>>> as status change. I can see the entities that are affected solely by > >>>> users having those fields. > >>>> I can see some being added but not every entity. > >>>> Many entities data is not created without a dependence on another one so > >>>> those should not need those two fields. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Deyan Tsvetanov sent the following on 7/19/2010 8:03 AM: > >>>>> Hi guys, > >>>>> > >>>>> another suggestion: to add 2 mandatory fields created_by and updated_by > >>>>> to all tables by default like created_stamp and updated_stamp. Currently > >>>>> there columns are added on demand in the entity definition but they are > >>>>> often needed. > >>>>> > >>>>> Examples of usage: > >>>>> 1) status change - there is no created_by in the entity status table - > >>>>> party_status. > >>>>> In general customers would like to know who and when disabled the party > >>>>> and who re-enabled it. The same applies to orders, invoices, etc. > >>>>> > >>>>> 2) Another example for using these 2 columns is entity lock. When an > >>>>> EntityLockedException is thrown it would be nice to include the > >>>>> userLoginId of the user who updated the record as well as the time so we > >>>>> can notify the user: > >>>>> "The record you are trying to save has been updated by Administrator, > >>>>> The priviledged 5 minutes 32 secods ago. To cancel your request and > >>>>> reload the changes click reload. To go ahead and overwrite the changes > >>>>> done by Administrator click "Overwrite". " > >>>>> Or so ... > >>>>> > >>>>> 3) Record based security - users could be allowed to modify records they > >>>>> have created even without edit or admin permissions. > >>>>> > >>>>> Therefore it would be very very helpful if these 2 columns are present > >>>>> by default, even if they allow null values to preserve the current code > >>>>> working. > >>>>> > >>>>> -- deyan > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > >
