OFBiz › OFBiz - Dev

Dev - XML Import

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

14 messages Options

Andrew Sykes

Dev - XML Import

Hi Folks,

I'm getting the following from XML Import screen in webtools (r7806)...

org.ofbiz.base.util.GeneralException: Error rendering screen
[component://webtools/widget/EntityScreens.xml#EntityImport]:
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Could not find screen with name
[CommonWebtoolsDecorator] in the same file as the screen with name
[EntityImport] (Could not find screen with name
[CommonWebtoolsDecorator] in the same file as the screen with name
[EntityImport])

Anyone know why this would be?
--
Kind Regards
Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]>
Sykes Development Ltd
http://www.sykesdevelopment.com

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

Jacopo Cappellato

Re: Dev - XML Import

Andrew,

I cannot reproduce this error; are you using an updated
webtools/webapp/webtools/WEB-INF/web.xml file?

Jacopo

Andrew Sykes wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
> I'm getting the following from XML Import screen in webtools (r7806)...
>
> org.ofbiz.base.util.GeneralException: Error rendering screen
> [component://webtools/widget/EntityScreens.xml#EntityImport]:
> java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Could not find screen with name
> [CommonWebtoolsDecorator] in the same file as the screen with name
> [EntityImport] (Could not find screen with name
> [CommonWebtoolsDecorator] in the same file as the screen with name
> [EntityImport])
>
> Anyone know why this would be?

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

Andrew Sykes

Re: Dev - XML Import

Jacopo,

I've seen this problem twice recently, we're going to double check
everything and then let you know...

Thanks for the quick response!

- Andrew

On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 17:45 +0200, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> I cannot reproduce this error; are you using an updated
> webtools/webapp/webtools/WEB-INF/web.xml file?
>
> Jacopo
>
> Andrew Sykes wrote:
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > I'm getting the following from XML Import screen in webtools (r7806)...
> >
> > org.ofbiz.base.util.GeneralException: Error rendering screen
> > [component://webtools/widget/EntityScreens.xml#EntityImport]:
> > java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Could not find screen with name
> > [CommonWebtoolsDecorator] in the same file as the screen with name
> > [EntityImport] (Could not find screen with name
> > [CommonWebtoolsDecorator] in the same file as the screen with name
> > [EntityImport])
> >
> > Anyone know why this would be?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

cjhowe

Dev - Product Entity need updating?

I know this is a lot of work to do, but because of all
the additions to the Product Entity (which is great
stuff as far as functionality), is it about time to
start thinking about breaking these up so that the
productTypes have their own table (not to mention more
granular additions of future product types)? Maybe
moving the dimensions and content stuff out, too?
This would break a lot of backwards compatability, I
know. But 80% of the Product data is unused for every
product, seems inneficient. Any thoughts?

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

Andrew Sykes

Re: Dev - Product Entity need updating?

Chris,

Perhaps backward compatibility could be at least partially retained by
by turning the current entities into views of the proposed new ones?

- Andrew

On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 09:18 -0700, Chris Howe wrote:

> I know this is a lot of work to do, but because of all
> the additions to the Product Entity (which is great
> stuff as far as functionality), is it about time to
> start thinking about breaking these up so that the
> productTypes have their own table (not to mention more
> granular additions of future product types)? Maybe
> moving the dimensions and content stuff out, too?
> This would break a lot of backwards compatability, I
> know. But 80% of the Product data is unused for every
> product, seems inneficient. Any thoughts?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

cjhowe

Re: Dev - Product Entity need updating?

I imagine that would cause a mess with primary key
issues? I'm not sure how/if this has been handled in
the past. That might be a solution, but I can't quite
wrap my brain around how that would work.

--- Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Chris,
>
> Perhaps backward compatibility could be at least
> partially retained by
> by turning the current entities into views of the
> proposed new ones?
>
> - Andrew
>
> On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 09:18 -0700, Chris Howe wrote:
> > I know this is a lot of work to do, but because of
> all
> > the additions to the Product Entity (which is
> great
> > stuff as far as functionality), is it about time
> to
> > start thinking about breaking these up so that the
> > productTypes have their own table (not to mention
> more
> > granular additions of future product types)?
> Maybe
> > moving the dimensions and content stuff out, too?
> > This would break a lot of backwards compatability,
> I
> > know. But 80% of the Product data is unused for
> every
> > product, seems inneficient. Any thoughts?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dev mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
> --
> Kind Regards
> Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]>
> Sykes Development Ltd
> http://www.sykesdevelopment.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

David E. Jones

Re: Dev - Product Entity need updating?

Before getting too far down the thought path of how it might be done, it would be good to look at what would actually be done. Which fields on the Product entity seem to correspond with a specific type or other?

-David

Chris Howe wrote:

> I imagine that would cause a mess with primary key
> issues? I'm not sure how/if this has been handled in
> the past. That might be a solution, but I can't quite
> wrap my brain around how that would work.
>
>
> --- Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Chris,
>>
>> Perhaps backward compatibility could be at least
>> partially retained by
>> by turning the current entities into views of the
>> proposed new ones?
>>
>> - Andrew
>>
>> On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 09:18 -0700, Chris Howe wrote:
>>> I know this is a lot of work to do, but because of
>> all
>>> the additions to the Product Entity (which is
>> great
>>> stuff as far as functionality), is it about time
>> to
>>> start thinking about breaking these up so that the
>>> productTypes have their own table (not to mention
>> more
>>> granular additions of future product types)?
>> Maybe
>>> moving the dimensions and content stuff out, too?
>>> This would break a lot of backwards compatability,
>> I
>>> know. But 80% of the Product data is unused for
>> every
>>> product, seems inneficient. Any thoughts?
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>> --
>> Kind Regards
>> Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]>
>> Sykes Development Ltd
>> http://www.sykesdevelopment.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

cjhowe

Re: Dev - Product Entity need updating?

Fine David, be the voice of reason :)

I suppose I'm just noticing the issue with the
addition of the reservation stuff. It's not so much a
productType issue (although the reservation fields are
productType specific and that is a small issue) as it
is that the ProductEntity is trying to keep track of
information that for a BASIC product oriented
implementation is a one to one relationsip, but for
non basic implementations, it is too contraining.
Especially considering some of the advancements in
other entities that have taken place over the years.

I've attached a spreadsheet that details it a bit,
please add and comment
--- David E Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Before getting too far down the thought path of how
> it might be done, it would be good to look at what
> would actually be done. Which fields on the Product
> entity seem to correspond with a specific type or
> other?
>
> -David
>
>
> Chris Howe wrote:
> > I imagine that would cause a mess with primary key
> > issues? I'm not sure how/if this has been handled
> in
> > the past. That might be a solution, but I can't
> quite
> > wrap my brain around how that would work.
> >
> >
> > --- Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Chris,
> >>
> >> Perhaps backward compatibility could be at least
> >> partially retained by
> >> by turning the current entities into views of the
> >> proposed new ones?
> >>
> >> - Andrew
> >>
> >> On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 09:18 -0700, Chris Howe
> wrote:
> >>> I know this is a lot of work to do, but because
> of
> >> all
> >>> the additions to the Product Entity (which is
> >> great
> >>> stuff as far as functionality), is it about time
> >> to
> >>> start thinking about breaking these up so that
> the
> >>> productTypes have their own table (not to
> mention
> >> more
> >>> granular additions of future product types)?
> >> Maybe
> >>> moving the dimensions and content stuff out,
> too?
> >>> This would break a lot of backwards
> compatability,
> >> I
> >>> know. But 80% of the Product data is unused for
> >> every
> >>> product, seems inneficient. Any thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Dev mailing list
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
> >> --
> >> Kind Regards
> >> Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]>
> >> Sykes Development Ltd
> >> http://www.sykesdevelopment.com
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Dev mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dev mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

ProductEntity.xls (26K) Download Attachment

Andrew Sykes

Re: Dev - Product Entity need updating?

Chris, David,

I have always thought that it was a bit strange that the attributes
below were part of the Product entity...

weightUomId
weight
heightUomId
productHeight
shippingHeight
widthUomId
productWidth
shippingWidth
depthUomId
productDepth
shippingDepth

This looks like a separate entity waiting to happen
(ProductDimension/ProductMetrics?)

Also, I have more or less regarded these as deprecated...

description
longDescription
priceDetailText
smallImageUrl
mediumImageUrl
largeImageUrl
detailImageUrl
detailScreen
inventoryMessage

Would it be an idea to simply remove the ability to manage these
via /catalog, and perhaps have some kind of migration service to create
corresponding CMS entries for them?

- Andrew

On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 10:33 -0700, Chris Howe wrote:

> Fine David, be the voice of reason :)
>
> I suppose I'm just noticing the issue with the
> addition of the reservation stuff. It's not so much a
> productType issue (although the reservation fields are
> productType specific and that is a small issue) as it
> is that the ProductEntity is trying to keep track of
> information that for a BASIC product oriented
> implementation is a one to one relationsip, but for
> non basic implementations, it is too contraining.
> Especially considering some of the advancements in
> other entities that have taken place over the years.
>
> I've attached a spreadsheet that details it a bit,
> please add and comment
> --- David E Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Before getting too far down the thought path of how
> > it might be done, it would be good to look at what
> > would actually be done. Which fields on the Product
> > entity seem to correspond with a specific type or
> > other?
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> > Chris Howe wrote:
> > > I imagine that would cause a mess with primary key
> > > issues? I'm not sure how/if this has been handled
> > in
> > > the past. That might be a solution, but I can't
> > quite
> > > wrap my brain around how that would work.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Chris,
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps backward compatibility could be at least
> > >> partially retained by
> > >> by turning the current entities into views of the
> > >> proposed new ones?
> > >>
> > >> - Andrew
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 09:18 -0700, Chris Howe
> > wrote:
> > >>> I know this is a lot of work to do, but because
> > of
> > >> all
> > >>> the additions to the Product Entity (which is
> > >> great
> > >>> stuff as far as functionality), is it about time
> > >> to
> > >>> start thinking about breaking these up so that
> > the
> > >>> productTypes have their own table (not to
> > mention
> > >> more
> > >>> granular additions of future product types)?
> > >> Maybe
> > >>> moving the dimensions and content stuff out,
> > too?
> > >>> This would break a lot of backwards
> > compatability,
> > >> I
> > >>> know. But 80% of the Product data is unused for
> > >> every
> > >>> product, seems inneficient. Any thoughts?
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Dev mailing list
> > >>> [hidden email]
> > >>> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
> > >> --
> > >> Kind Regards
> > >> Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]>
> > >> Sykes Development Ltd
> > >> http://www.sykesdevelopment.com
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Dev mailing list
> > >> [hidden email]
> > >> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Dev mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dev mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
> >
> _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

Hans Bakker

Re: Dev - XML Import

In reply to this post by Andrew Sykes

Andrew...this was fixed in R7758

Hans

On Friday 16 June 2006 22:38, Andrew Sykes wrote:

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

attachment0 (196 bytes) Download Attachment

Andrew Sykes

Re: Dev - XML Import

Hans,

Thank you, it looks like something strange happened with our svn update.

Seems to be fine now.

- Andrew

On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 09:00 +0700, Hans Bakker wrote:

> Andrew...this was fixed in R7758
>
> Hans
>
> On Friday 16 June 2006 22:38, Andrew Sykes wrote:
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > I'm getting the following from XML Import screen in webtools (r7806)...
> >
> > org.ofbiz.base.util.GeneralException: Error rendering screen
> > [component://webtools/widget/EntityScreens.xml#EntityImport]:
> > java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Could not find screen with name
> > [CommonWebtoolsDecorator] in the same file as the screen with name
> > [EntityImport] (Could not find screen with name
> > [CommonWebtoolsDecorator] in the same file as the screen with name
> > [EntityImport])
> >
> > Anyone know why this would be?
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

David E. Jones

Re: Dev - Product Entity need updating?

In reply to this post by Andrew Sykes

Andrew Sykes wrote:

> Also, I have more or less regarded these as deprecated...
>
> description
> longDescription
> priceDetailText
> smallImageUrl
> mediumImageUrl
> largeImageUrl
> detailImageUrl
> detailScreen
> inventoryMessage
>
> Would it be an idea to simply remove the ability to manage these
> via /catalog, and perhaps have some kind of migration service to create
> corresponding CMS entries for them?

These are intentionally left in place because for sites that don't need internationalized or more flexible content these fields right on the Product entity are significantly faster than the content lookups and rendering.

-David

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

cjhowe

Re: Dev - Product Entity need updating?

is it significantly faster than using a view-entity
between Product and a would be ProductContent type
entity?

--- "David E. Jones" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> Andrew Sykes wrote:
> > Also, I have more or less regarded these as
> deprecated...
> >
> > description
> > longDescription
> > priceDetailText
> > smallImageUrl
> > mediumImageUrl
> > largeImageUrl
> > detailImageUrl
> > detailScreen
> > inventoryMessage
> >
> > Would it be an idea to simply remove the ability
> to manage these
> > via /catalog, and perhaps have some kind of
> migration service to create
> > corresponding CMS entries for them?
>
> These are intentionally left in place because for
> sites that don't need internationalized or more
> flexible content these fields right on the Product
> entity are significantly faster than the content
> lookups and rendering.
>
> -David
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

Vinay Agarwal

Re: Dev - Product Entity need updating?

In reply to this post by Andrew Sykes

Andrew,

May I suggest that DemoProduct.xml be updated to the latest product
description model so that people (like me) can learn it. Once people switch
to the new thinking, it would be easy to remove unneeded fields.

Regards,
Vinay Agarwal

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of Andrew Sykes
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 12:19 PM
To: OFBiz Project Development Discussion
Subject: Re: [OFBiz] Dev - Product Entity need updating?

Chris, David,

I have always thought that it was a bit strange that the attributes below
were part of the Product entity...

weightUomId
weight
heightUomId
productHeight
shippingHeight
widthUomId
productWidth
shippingWidth
depthUomId
productDepth
shippingDepth

This looks like a separate entity waiting to happen
(ProductDimension/ProductMetrics?)

Also, I have more or less regarded these as deprecated...

description
longDescription
priceDetailText
smallImageUrl
mediumImageUrl
largeImageUrl
detailImageUrl
detailScreen
inventoryMessage

Would it be an idea to simply remove the ability to manage these via
/catalog, and perhaps have some kind of migration service to create
corresponding CMS entries for them?

- Andrew

On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 10:33 -0700, Chris Howe wrote:

> Fine David, be the voice of reason :)
>
> I suppose I'm just noticing the issue with the addition of the
> reservation stuff. It's not so much a productType issue (although the
> reservation fields are productType specific and that is a small issue)
> as it is that the ProductEntity is trying to keep track of information
> that for a BASIC product oriented implementation is a one to one
> relationsip, but for non basic implementations, it is too contraining.
> Especially considering some of the advancements in other entities that
> have taken place over the years.
>
> I've attached a spreadsheet that details it a bit, please add and
> comment
> --- David E Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Before getting too far down the thought path of how it might be
> > done, it would be good to look at what would actually be done. Which
> > fields on the Product entity seem to correspond with a specific type
> > or other?
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> > Chris Howe wrote:
> > > I imagine that would cause a mess with primary key issues? I'm
> > > not sure how/if this has been handled
> > in
> > > the past. That might be a solution, but I can't
> > quite
> > > wrap my brain around how that would work.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Chris,
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps backward compatibility could be at least partially
> > >> retained by by turning the current entities into views of the
> > >> proposed new ones?
> > >>
> > >> - Andrew
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 09:18 -0700, Chris Howe
> > wrote:
> > >>> I know this is a lot of work to do, but because
> > of
> > >> all
> > >>> the additions to the Product Entity (which is
> > >> great
> > >>> stuff as far as functionality), is it about time
> > >> to
> > >>> start thinking about breaking these up so that
> > the
> > >>> productTypes have their own table (not to
> > mention
> > >> more
> > >>> granular additions of future product types)?
> > >> Maybe
> > >>> moving the dimensions and content stuff out,
> > too?
> > >>> This would break a lot of backwards
> > compatability,
> > >> I
> > >>> know. But 80% of the Product data is unused for
> > >> every
> > >>> product, seems inneficient. Any thoughts?
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Dev mailing list
> > >>> [hidden email]
> > >>> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
> > >> --
> > >> Kind Regards
> > >> Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]> Sykes Development Ltd
> > >> http://www.sykesdevelopment.com
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Dev mailing list
> > >> [hidden email]
> > >> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Dev mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dev mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
> >
> _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list
> [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

--
Kind Regards
Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]> Sykes Development Ltd
http://www.sykesdevelopment.com

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev