-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Rules on keeping old entities? #20
Comments
+1 for recommendation to keep them and to hide them consistently if needed. But we as a service provider are in no position to tell our customers how long they have to keep their data. |
Somewhat related to: erasmus-without-paper/general-issues#20
Added "Referential integrity" and "Keeping old data" chapters here. |
Should we document some rules, or at least recommendations, on the subject of keeping obsolete EWP entities "visible"?
First, a quote from this issue:
I will expand on this answer a bit:
When I was documenting the APIs I noticed that keeping (and exposing) a full history seems to be the easiest way for developers to keep that said consistency. I myself would probably tend to do it this way, for simplicity. But I know that this topic is disputable, because I often tend to argue about such issues with @janinamincer-daszkiewicz. So I open this issue here.
Problems:
Our current answer: It's always acceptable, but it's not required. Server implementers MAY decide to hide old entities - but if they do, they MUST hide them consistently (as described by the example quoted above).
I do believe that it's NOT okay to hide such entries "too early". And I think we should decide on what this "too early" exactly means. For example:
Can we, for example, make it "RECOMMENDED" to keep such obsolete entities online "at least 2 years after they got obsolete"?
@erasmus-without-paper/all-members
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: