CCSBE – time for a new revision? - Forum - OpenEdge Architecture - Progress Community
 Forum

CCSBE – time for a new revision?

This question is not answered

Forwarded from https://community.progress.com/products/directions/common_component/f/208/t/38324

Please post replies there. 

Hi all,

It’s been two years now since we have finalized the CCS Business Entity specification https://github.com/progress/CCS/tree/master/Specs/BusinessEntity/v1_0). Some of us may have real world experience of implementing full featured CCSBE compliant Business Entities now. What’s your experience? Any feedback?

With this post, I’m also seeking for subjects that might worth discussing in the scope of a new revision of the CCSBE specification. I’m basically seeking for input for the formal spec proposal – and obviously for collaborators in a possible specification team. Recently I’ve come across a small issue in the CCSBE spec: we’ve overlooked the NE operator in the QueryOperatorEnum. And it might certainly be worth discussing if we shouldn’t add a description or even a formal specification about the Data Access layer. Please get back to me by replying to this post if you have comments/feedback, topics for a new spec revision or would like to be part of a possible spec team.

Cheers,

Mike

Architect of the SmartComponent Library and WinKit

Consultingwerk Ltd.

All Replies
  • I don't have much to say about it, but the link to the original post doesn't work: "Not Found".

  • The CCS forum requires registration. The link works fine for me.

    Didn't you publish an CCS implementation recently? Did you implement CCSBE as well?

    Architect of the SmartComponent Library and WinKit

    Consultingwerk Ltd.

  • Ok, so the message is really wrong, should be "requires registration" and not "Not found".

    I did implement CCS and the CCSBE too (all the CSS specs actually).

    The whole implementation is available on GitHub:

    github.com/.../NSRA-CCS

    To be honest I find the BE specification overly complex, and see no use case for the query parts stuff. Having a way of specifying an ABL criteria (and/or an SQL criteria) is more than enough to me.

    Take into consideration I'm not a CCS user, and as such I don't really know the use cases it is supouse to cover.

    I've just provided a CCS way of accesing NSRA, which is somehow a restricted use case.

    Thats the main reason I asked for a test suite, to actually see how are things suposed to be used.