Chances are the field type was left for backwards compatibility. I'm ok with it being removed though.
Regards Scott On 4 May 2017 at 15:32, Taher Alkhateeb <slidingfilame...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hmmm I was actually rethinking about this, and this reminds me somewhat of > the "Bounded context" concept from DDD. Some services might want to > validate while others don't on certain fields depending on context, and > hence delegating that validation to services makes sense (no domain exists > in OFBiz). > > The problem of the existence of id-ne lingers though. It's putting > unneceasary cognitive strain on users to figure out what is it and what to > do with it. Also, this means no validation can happen for entity-auto CRUD > services. > > So, I'm a bit on the fence, leaning slightly towards removing id-ne, but I > think we must choose one of: > 1- removing id-ne > 2- reintroducing validation > > On May 4, 2017 3:10 AM, "Scott Gray" <scott.g...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > > > Took a while to dig it out but here it is: > > http://ofbiz.markmail.org/thread/c6ee3ewyo6jpik7k > > > > It's not as in-depth as I'd hoped, but it was purposefully removed all > the > > same. > > > > Regards > > Scott > > > > On 3 May 2017 at 17:42, Aditya Sharma <aditya.sha...@hotwaxsystems.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Scott, > > > > > > As there is very less information available with the commit I found it > > > quite difficult to find that discussion. Maybe I just missed out > > something. > > > Could you please just help me trace that out to understand it well? > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > Aditya Sharma > > > Enterprise Software Engineer > > > HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd. > > > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/ > > > > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/aditya-sharma-78291810a/> > > > > > > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Aditya Sharma < > > > aditya.sha...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Taher, > > > > > > > > Totally agreed to that it should be at entity engine level and > default > > to > > > > false as that way it will not affect the current implementations and > > will > > > > give more scope for its enhancements to cater specific needs. > > > > > > > > > My recommendation is to reintroduce the validation attribute. > > However! > > > > the > > > > > validation IMO should happen at the entity engine level, not the > > > database > > > > > level (for not null), and also the default value should be false if > > > > > omitted. We also need to think of the design in respect of the > > > validation > > > > > attributes and how they apply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > > Aditya Sharma > > > > Enterprise Software Engineer > > > > HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd. > > > > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/ > > > > > > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/aditya-sharma-78291810a/> > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Scott Gray < > > > scott.g...@hotwaxsystems.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> It was removed purposefully and there was a discussion about it. I'd > > > >> suggest we all need to go back and look at that discussion before > > > deciding > > > >> how to proceed. > > > >> > > > >> Regards > > > >> Scott > > > >> > > > >> On 1/05/2017 19:03, "Taher Alkhateeb" <slidingfilame...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > I don't have the historical context, so please excuse if I'm off. > > > >> > > > > >> > My recommendation is to reintroduce the validation attribute. > > However! > > > >> the > > > >> > validation IMO should happen at the entity engine level, not the > > > >> database > > > >> > level (for not null), and also the default value should be false > if > > > >> > omitted. We also need to think of the design in respect of the > > > >> validation > > > >> > attributes and how they apply. > > > >> > > > > >> > On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Aditya Sharma < > > > >> > aditya.sha...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > Hi, > > > >> > > > > > >> > > While creating an entity I was in ambiguity whether to go for > > "*id*" > > > >> or " > > > >> > > *id-ne*" field type. When I googled it I came across this very > > > >> enriching > > > >> > > discussion. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/EntityEngine-field-types- > > > >> > td2251546.html > > > >> > > > > > >> > > As stated, an "id-ne" field can only have a *non-empty* value. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I was very curious to know how it is implemented in OFBiz. I > found > > > >> that > > > >> > > almost all the *fieldtype*.xml* files have *same* *sql-type* and > > > >> > > *java-type* > > > >> > > for these 2 field types but I couldn't get any trace of how that > > > >> > not-empty > > > >> > > constraint is levied upon "id-ne" fields. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I even looked at table structure for those fields having "id-ne" > > > field > > > >> > type > > > >> > > but there was no "not-null" constraint at even the database > level. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > When dug into it further I can across this commit where validate > > > >> elements > > > >> > > were removed from fieldtype*.xml files. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > http://markmail.org/message/otec62xiwkpjttkq > > > >> > > > > > >> > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=959708 > > > >> > > > > > >> > > But I can't get why it was removed and when it was removed > whether > > > >> there > > > >> > > was some implementation that took its place for those > validations. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > To further check if it even works I found an OOTB entity having > a > > > >> > > non-primary key "id-ne" field. I found that "*Picklist*" entity > > has > > > a > > > >> > field > > > >> > > *shipmentMethodTypeId* as "id- ne" type. When we *create a > > picklist* > > > >> for > > > >> > an > > > >> > > order from Facility Manager, *shipmentMethodTypeId* can be > > *empty*. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > If my explorations are correct currently there is no difference > > > >> between > > > >> > > "id" and "id-ne" at the implementation level and there should > be a > > > >> Jira > > > >> > for > > > >> > > it. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > If I missed out something, can someone please enlighten me with > > that > > > >> and > > > >> > > help me understanding it well. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Thanks & Regards, > > > >> > > Aditya Sharma > > > >> > > Enterprise Software Engineer > > > >> > > HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd. > > > >> > > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/ > > > >> > > > > > >> > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/aditya-sharma-78291810a/> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
