亚洲免费在线-亚洲免费在线播放-亚洲免费在线观看-亚洲免费在线观看视频-亚洲免费在线看-亚洲免费在线视频

Don’t Delete – Just Don’t

系統(tǒng) 1703 0

Don’t Delete – Just Don’t

Tuesday, September 1st, 2009.

Don’t Delete – Just Don’t
After reading Ayende’s post advocating against “soft deletes” I felt that I should add a bit more to the topic as there were some important business semantics missing. As developers discuss the pertinence of using an IsDeleted column in the database to mark deletion, and the way this relates to reporting and auditing concerns is weighed, the core domain concepts rarely get a mention. Let’s first understand the business scenarios we’re modeling, the why behind them, before delving into the how of implementation.

The real world doesn’t cascade

Let’s say our marketing department decides to delete an item from the catalog. Should all previous orders containing that item just disappear? And cascading farther, should all invoices for those orders be deleted as well? Going on, would we have to redo the company’s profit and loss statements?

Heaven forbid.

So, is Ayende wrong? Do we really need soft deletes after all?

On the one hand, we don’t want to leave our database in an inconsistent state with invoices pointing to non-existent orders, but on the other hand, our users did ask us to delete an entity.

Or did they?

When all you have is a hammer…

We’ve been exposing users to entity-based interfaces with “create, read, update, delete” semantics in them for so long that they have started presenting us requirements using that same language, even though it’s an extremely poor fit.

Instead of accepting “delete” as a normal user action, let’s go into why users “delete” stuff, and what they actually intend to do.

The guys in marketing can’t actually make all physical instances of a product disappear – nor would they want to. In talking with these users, we might discover that their intent is quite different:

“What I mean by ‘delete’ is that the product should be discontinued. We don’t want to sell this line of product anymore. We want to get rid of the inventory we have, but not order any more from our supplier. The product shouldn’t appear any more when customers do a product search or category listing, but the guys in the warehouse will still need to manage these items in the interim. It’s much shorter to just say ‘delete’ though.”

There seem to be quite a few interesting business rules and processes there, but nothing that looks like it could be solved by a single database column.

Model the task, not the data

Looking back at the story our friend from marketing told us, his intent is to discontinue the product – not to delete it in any technical sense of the word. As such, we probably should provide a more explicit representation of this task in the user interface than just selecting a row in some grid and clicking the ‘delete’ button (and “Are you sure?” isn’t it).

As we broaden our perspective to more parts of the system, we see this same pattern repeating:

Orders aren’t deleted – they’re cancelled. There may also be fees incurred if the order is canceled too late.

Employees aren’t deleted – they’re fired (or possibly retired). A compensation package often needs to be handled.

Jobs aren’t deleted – they’re filled (or their requisition is revoked).

In all cases, the thing we should focus on is the task the user wishes to perform, rather than on the technical action to be performed on one entity or another. In almost all cases, more than one entity needs to be considered.

Statuses

In all the examples above, what we see is a replacement of the technical action ‘delete’ with a relevant business action. At the entity level, instead of having a (hidden) technical WasDeleted status, we see an explicit business status that users need to be aware of.

The manager of the warehouse needs to know that a product is discontinued so that they don’t order any more stock from the supplier. In today’s world of retail with Vendor Managed Inventory, this often happens together with a modification to an agreement with the vendor, or possibly a cancellation of that agreement.

This isn’t just a case of transactional or reporting boundaries – users in different contexts need to see different things at different times as the status changes to reflect the entity’s place in the business lifecycle. Customers shouldn’t see discontinued products at all. Warehouse workers should, that is, until the corresponding Stock Keeping Unit (SKU) has been revoked (another status) after we’ve sold all the inventory we wanted (and maybe returned the rest back to the supplier).

Rules and Validation

When looking at the world through over-simplified-delete-glasses, we may consider the logic dictating when we can delete to be quite simple: do some role-based-security checks, check that the entity exists, delete. Piece of cake.

The real world is a bigger, more complicated cake.

Let’s consider deleting an order, or rather, canceling it. On top of the regular security checks, we’ve got some rules to consider:

If the order has already been delivered, check if the customer isn’t happy with what they got, and go about returning the order.

If the order contained products “made to order”, charge the customer for a portion (or all) of the order (based on other rules).

And more…

Deciding what the next status should be may very well depend on the current business status of the entity. Deciding if that change of state is allowed is context and time specific – at one point in time the task may have been allowed, but later not. The logic here is not necessarily entirely related to the entity being “deleted” – there may be other entities which need to be checked, and whose status may also need to be changed as well.

Summary

I know that some of you are thinking, “my system isn’t that complex – we can just delete and be done with it”.

My question to you would be, have you asked your users why they’re deleting things? Have you asked them about additional statuses and rules dictating how entities move as groups between them? You don’t want the success of your project to be undermined by that kind of unfounded assumption, do you?

The reason we’re given budgets to build business applications is because of the richness in business rules and statuses that ultimately provide value to users and a competitive advantage to the business. If that value wasn’t there, wouldn’t we be serving our users better by just giving them Microsoft Access?

In closing, given that you’re not giving your users MS Access, don’t think about deleting entities. Look for the reason why. Understand the different statuses that entities move between. Ask which users need to care about which status. I know it doesn’t show up as nicely on your resume as “3 years WXF”, but “saved the company $4 million in wasted inventory” does speak volumes.

One last sentence: Don’t delete. Just don’t.

??

Don’t Delete – Just Don’t


更多文章、技術(shù)交流、商務(wù)合作、聯(lián)系博主

微信掃碼或搜索:z360901061

微信掃一掃加我為好友

QQ號聯(lián)系: 360901061

您的支持是博主寫作最大的動力,如果您喜歡我的文章,感覺我的文章對您有幫助,請用微信掃描下面二維碼支持博主2元、5元、10元、20元等您想捐的金額吧,狠狠點(diǎn)擊下面給點(diǎn)支持吧,站長非常感激您!手機(jī)微信長按不能支付解決辦法:請將微信支付二維碼保存到相冊,切換到微信,然后點(diǎn)擊微信右上角掃一掃功能,選擇支付二維碼完成支付。

【本文對您有幫助就好】

您的支持是博主寫作最大的動力,如果您喜歡我的文章,感覺我的文章對您有幫助,請用微信掃描上面二維碼支持博主2元、5元、10元、自定義金額等您想捐的金額吧,站長會非常 感謝您的哦!!!

發(fā)表我的評論
最新評論 總共0條評論
主站蜘蛛池模板: 中文字幕视频在线免费观看 | 91亚洲国产在人线播放午夜 | 97在线观看免费 | 目韩一区二区三区系列片丶 | 国产精品久久亚洲不卡4k岛国 | 天天操丝袜 | 久久小视频 | 四虎国产精品免费五月天 | 日本精品久久久久中文字幕2 | 久久国产精品亚洲一区二区 | 色综合久久综合网 | 97久久精品国产成人影院 | 2021在线永久免费视频 | 久99久精品免费视频热77 | 免费激情片 | 九九精品视频免费 | 久久综合99re88久久爱 | 亚洲日韩精品欧美一区二区一 | 欧美一级毛片aaaaa | 日本不卡一区二区三区 最新 | 久久精品国产视频在热 | 国产高清视频 | 国产精品人成福利视频 | 伊人热| 激情在线网站 | 国产精品99久久 | 一道本不卡免费视频 | 欧美伦理一区二区三区 | 亚洲欧美在线看 | 爱爱小视频在线观看网站 | 在线欧美不卡 | 深夜视频在线 | 中文字幕三级久久久久久 | 国产精品久久久精品视频 | 国产第一福利影院 | 午夜国产精品久久影院 | 国产日韩精品欧美一区色 | 亚洲国产欧美久久香综合 | 91精品免费国产高清在线 | 久久国产欧美日韩精品 | 2019最新四虎免费8848 |