Model Refactor

[John Leith]

I am not sure why satchmo originally had several different models for
for payments at different phases. I'm refering to models like
PaymentFailure and PaymentPending. I think it would be simpiler to
manage a payment with a status choice or flags saying the payment is/
isn't processed.


Here's my scenario:

- A company makes a payment authorization
- The order is processed
- Right before the product is shipped the payment is finished.

I would think that it would be simplier to just have one payment that
is authorized and captured the whole way through rather than creating
a pending payment, then a payment (or authorization and then
payment... i'm not sure how you'd do it here), then if the payment
fails another object that is a payment failure. Wouldn't it make sense
to just keep the same object all the way through?

- start a payment, it is flagged as pending
- later when the order is run it is marked as failed or succeeded

Thoughts?

[Bruce Kroeze]

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 9:01 PM, John Leith <leith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am not sure why satchmo originally had several different models for
> for payments at different phases. I'm refering to models like
> PaymentFailure and PaymentPending. I think it would be simpiler to
> manage a payment with a status choice or flags saying the payment is/
> isn't processed.

I agree with you. I've wanted to do this change for some time, but my
first goal with Bursar was to make it work as-is, and then to make the
needed changes to make high-priority changes such as this.

--
Bruce Kroeze
http://www.ecomsmith.com
It's time to hammer your site into shape.