Content item identifier numbers are progressive across parliaments

[GoogleCodeExporter]

1 - currently "registry number" and "progressive number" are never reset even 
across parliaments -  

2 - we need to associate a "reset" to e.g. creation of a new parliament - by 
the way how to we handle them ... for legacy data? we also need to input them 
"manually"???? and what will happen if one reactive a parliament after it has 
been closed? ... the system should pick up the lastest "numbers" and ... move 
on, I guess. 

3- we may have to use composite number identifiers" for the registry identifier 
e.g. "parliament short name/number" P-X/132 and for document number same with 
also the document type e.g. P VII/que/123 

Original issue reported on code.google.com by ashok.ha...@gmail.com on 24 Jun 2010 at 9:16

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Presently use postgresql sequences to generate identifiers. These are global to 
a db. In the current setup both past and present parliaments run within the 
same database and share the same tables. Perhaps we should look at putting 
parliaments into their own databases - so past parliaments would have their own 
databases. This would allow regenerating sequences for every parliament.

Original comment by ashok.ha...@gmail.com on 24 Jun 2010 at 9:18

• Added labels: Category-ContentTypeReorganization

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by flavio.z...@gmail.com on 29 Jun 2010 at 9:14

• Added labels: Milestone-beta

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Updated Summary of this issue :

Problem Statement 
------------------

1 - Currently "registry number" and "progressive number" are never reset even 
across parliaments -  

2 - we need to associate a "reset" for the number for specific events e.g. 
creation of a new parliament - 

3- we also may have to use composite number identifiers" for the registry 
identifier e.g. "parliament short name/number" P-X/132 and for document number 
same with also the document type e.g. P VII/que/123 . Currently this is not 
supported.

Other Issues as a result of the above
-------------------------------------

a) How will legacy data be handled ? -- since we may need to input the 
currently automatically generated numbers manually.

b) What if someone accidentaly deactivates a parliament ..and then reactivates 
it ...what happens to the sequences in this case ? -- the sequences are created 
as postgresql sequences, which run independent of parliament activation and 
deactivation -- so this should not be impacted.

c) More serious issue here is the implication of using postgresql-sequences -- 
these are global to the database. In the current bungeni setup both past and 
present parliaments must run in the same database -- which means they share 
tables and hence share object sequences.

Original comment by ashok.ha...@gmail.com on 22 Nov 2010 at 8:17

• Changed state: New

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Closing All these issues -- As the list is being updated to match with the 
whiteboard backlog.

Original comment by ashok.ha...@gmail.com on 7 Sep 2012 at 7:57

• Changed state: Closed