Framework Independence
Locked
12
12
 
|
I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm
trying to get a framework-only installation to run. There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. Should we move the content component to the framework? -Adrian |
|
|
first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level.
Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. ========================= BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: > I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm > trying to get a framework-only installation to run. > > There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. > Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The > online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. > Should we move the content component to the framework? > > -Adrian > |
Re: Framework Independence
|
|
In reply to this post by Adrian Crum
On Dec 15, 2010, at 6:52 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm trying to get a framework-only installation to run. > > There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. Should we move the content component to the framework? IMO a part of the content component could live in the framework. Jacopo > > -Adrian |
|
|
In reply to this post by BJ Freeman
To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to
run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run. -Adrian On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: > first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. > Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. > when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. > > ========================= > BJ Freeman > Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation > <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> > Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> > Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist > > Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man > > > Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: >> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm >> trying to get a framework-only installation to run. >> >> There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. >> Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The >> online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. >> Should we move the content component to the framework? >> >> -Adrian >> > > |
|
|
I don't think you will find a consensus so just need to branch your own
frame work as I did. ========================= BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 10:40 AM: > To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to > run by themselves - without the components found in the applications > folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. > > I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a > framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to > disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run. > > -Adrian > > On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: >> first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. >> Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. >> when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. >> >> ========================= >> BJ Freeman >> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation >> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> >> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> >> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist >> >> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man >> >> >> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: >>> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm >>> trying to get a framework-only installation to run. >>> >>> There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. >>> Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The >>> online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. >>> Should we move the content component to the framework? >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >> >> > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Adrian Crum
I really think you'd need to split the content component into two, simply moving it to the framework would probably introduce a whole other set of dependencies to deal with.
Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 16/12/2010, at 7:40 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. > > I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run. > > -Adrian > > On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: >> first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. >> Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. >> when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. >> >> ========================= >> BJ Freeman >> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation >> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> >> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> >> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist >> >> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man >> >> >> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: >>> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm >>> trying to get a framework-only installation to run. >>> >>> There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. >>> Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The >>> online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. >>> Should we move the content component to the framework? >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >> >> |
smime.p7s (3K) |
|
At first glance it looks that way. All we really need in the framework
are the content entities and their CRUD services. -Adrian On 12/15/2010 11:04 AM, Scott Gray wrote: > I really think you'd need to split the content component into two, simply moving it to the framework would probably introduce a whole other set of dependencies to deal with. > > Regards > Scott > > HotWax Media > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com > > On 16/12/2010, at 7:40 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > >> To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. >> >> I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run. >> >> -Adrian >> >> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: >>> first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. >>> Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. >>> when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. >>> >>> ========================= >>> BJ Freeman >>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation >>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> >>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/> >>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist >>> >>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man >>> >>> >>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: >>>> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm >>>> trying to get a framework-only installation to run. >>>> >>>> There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. >>>> Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The >>>> online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. >>>> Should we move the content component to the framework? >>>> >>>> -Adrian >>>> >>> >>> > |
|
|
I'm guessing you'd also need ContentWorker and DataResourceWorker.
Regards Scott On 16/12/2010, at 8:15 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > At first glance it looks that way. All we really need in the framework are the content entities and their CRUD services. > > -Adrian > > On 12/15/2010 11:04 AM, Scott Gray wrote: >> I really think you'd need to split the content component into two, simply moving it to the framework would probably introduce a whole other set of dependencies to deal with. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> HotWax Media >> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >> >> On 16/12/2010, at 7:40 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> >>> To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. >>> >>> I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run. >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >>> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: >>>> first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. >>>> Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. >>>> when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. >>>> >>>> ========================= >>>> BJ Freeman >>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation >>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> >>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/> >>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist >>>> >>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man >>>> >>>> >>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: >>>>> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm >>>>> trying to get a framework-only installation to run. >>>>> >>>>> There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. >>>>> Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The >>>>> online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. >>>>> Should we move the content component to the framework? >>>>> >>>>> -Adrian >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> |
|
In reply to this post by Adrian Crum
I agree. It possible to split content to framework component and keep
functionnal on application but I think this operation It's not easy and I haven't suggest how do this. Nicolas Le 15/12/2010 20:15, Adrian Crum a écrit : > At first glance it looks that way. All we really need in the framework > are the content entities and their CRUD services. > > -Adrian > > On 12/15/2010 11:04 AM, Scott Gray wrote: >> I really think you'd need to split the content component into two, >> simply moving it to the framework would probably introduce a whole >> other set of dependencies to deal with. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> HotWax Media >> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >> >> On 16/12/2010, at 7:40 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> >>> To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder >>> to run by themselves - without the components found in the >>> applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. >>> >>> I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a >>> framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to >>> disable the components in the applications folder and still have >>> OFBiz run. >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >>> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: >>>> first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework >>>> level. >>>> Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put >>>> installed. >>>> when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. >>>> >>>> ========================= >>>> BJ Freeman >>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation >>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> >>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/> >>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist >>>> >>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man >>>> >>>> >>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: >>>>> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm >>>>> trying to get a framework-only installation to run. >>>>> >>>>> There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. >>>>> Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly >>>>> easy. The >>>>> online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. >>>>> Should we move the content component to the framework? >>>>> >>>>> -Adrian >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> -- Nicolas MALIN Consultant Tél : 06.17.66.40.06 Site projet : http://www.neogia.org/ ------- Société LibrenBerry Tél : 02.48.02.56.12 Site : http://www.librenberry.net/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Adrian Crum
the pattern of having the entities and services specific to a component
will be broken. so a test file in each folder about were the entities and services are should be included. you can take the webapp/content/docbooks and put in common since it is standalone engine for created docbooks output. suggest put in webapps or common. ========================= BJ Freeman Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 11:15 AM: > At first glance it looks that way. All we really need in the framework > are the content entities and their CRUD services. > > -Adrian > > On 12/15/2010 11:04 AM, Scott Gray wrote: >> I really think you'd need to split the content component into two, >> simply moving it to the framework would probably introduce a whole >> other set of dependencies to deal with. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> HotWax Media >> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >> >> On 16/12/2010, at 7:40 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> >>> To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder >>> to run by themselves - without the components found in the >>> applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. >>> >>> I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a >>> framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to >>> disable the components in the applications folder and still have >>> OFBiz run. >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >>> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: >>>> first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework >>>> level. >>>> Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put >>>> installed. >>>> when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. >>>> >>>> ========================= >>>> BJ Freeman >>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation >>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> >>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/> >>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist >>>> >>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man >>>> >>>> >>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: >>>>> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm >>>>> trying to get a framework-only installation to run. >>>>> >>>>> There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. >>>>> Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. >>>>> The >>>>> online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. >>>>> Should we move the content component to the framework? >>>>> >>>>> -Adrian >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Scott Gray-2
I agree this is the way to go. Certain parts of certain application components should have been in the framework from the beginning, but certainly not all of them. Splitting out those specific parts and putting them in framework components as needed is the way to go. -David On Dec 15, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Scott Gray wrote: > I really think you'd need to split the content component into two, simply moving it to the framework would probably introduce a whole other set of dependencies to deal with. > > Regards > Scott > > HotWax Media > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com > > On 16/12/2010, at 7:40 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > >> To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. >> >> I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run. >> >> -Adrian >> >> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: >>> first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. >>> Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. >>> when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. >>> >>> ========================= >>> BJ Freeman >>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation >>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> >>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> >>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist >>> >>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man >>> >>> >>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: >>>> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm >>>> trying to get a framework-only installation to run. >>>> >>>> There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. >>>> Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The >>>> online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. >>>> Should we move the content component to the framework? >>>> >>>> -Adrian >>>> >>> >>> > |
|
|
In reply to this post by BJ Freeman
Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the framework more (or totally) independent from the applications and specialpurpose components. The only question is the best way to do that, and it looks like as far as a general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts from application components to framework components) a fair consensus is being reached quickly. Of course, this is helped by lots of previous discussion on this topic. -David On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: > I don't think you will find a consensus so just need to branch your own frame work as I did. > > > ========================= > BJ Freeman > Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> > Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> > Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist > > Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man > > > Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 10:40 AM: >> To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to >> run by themselves - without the components found in the applications >> folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. >> >> I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a >> framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to >> disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run. >> >> -Adrian >> >> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: >>> first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level. >>> Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed. >>> when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. >>> >>> ========================= >>> BJ Freeman >>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation >>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> >>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> >>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist >>> >>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man >>> >>> >>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: >>>> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm >>>> trying to get a framework-only installation to run. >>>> >>>> There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. >>>> Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The >>>> online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. >>>> Should we move the content component to the framework? >>>> >>>> -Adrian >>>> >>> >>> >> > |
|
|
By clicking on the party's name in the header the user is directed to this
screen: https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin Here there are lots of links and information related to all kind of things: orders, invoices, visits etc. In a framework-only installation this screen should only allow the user to access to its personal information, password, preferences etc. How could we get this? Could we replace this screen with a (non user-editable) PortalPage where every installed application could add their screenlets? Thank you, Bruno 2010/12/16 David E Jones <[hidden email]> > > Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the framework more (or > totally) independent from the applications and specialpurpose components. > The only question is the best way to do that, and it looks like as far as a > general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts from application > components to framework components) a fair consensus is being reached > quickly. > > Of course, this is helped by lots of previous discussion on this topic. > > -David > > > On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: > > > I don't think you will find a consensus so just need to branch your own > frame work as I did. > > > > > > ========================= > > BJ Freeman > > Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation < > http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> > > Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> > > Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist > > > > Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man > > > > > > Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 10:40 AM: > >> To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to > >> run by themselves - without the components found in the applications > >> folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. > >> > >> I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a > >> framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to > >> disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz > run. > >> > >> -Adrian > >> > >> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: > >>> first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework > level. > >>> Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put > installed. > >>> when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. > >>> > >>> ========================= > >>> BJ Freeman > >>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation > >>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> > >>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> > >>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist > >>> > >>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man > >>> > >>> > >>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: > >>>> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm > >>>> trying to get a framework-only installation to run. > >>>> > >>>> There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. > >>>> Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. > The > >>>> online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. > >>>> Should we move the content component to the framework? > >>>> > >>>> -Adrian > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > |
Re: Framework Independence
|
|
IMO the best way to go at this point is to move the ui for the administration of user logins and permissions from the party to the webtools web application.
In this way, in a framework only setup, we will have some screens to create new user accounts and administer them. I don't think that we have to provide screens addressed to users (not administrators) to manage their user preferences: the nature of this ui would be too much dependent on the nature of the custom applications that will be used with the framework. Kind regards, Jacopo On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Bruno Busco wrote: > By clicking on the party's name in the header the user is directed to this > screen: > https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin > > Here there are lots of links and information related to all kind of things: > orders, invoices, visits etc. > In a framework-only installation this screen should only allow the user to > access to its personal information, password, preferences etc. > How could we get this? > Could we replace this screen with a (non user-editable) PortalPage where > every installed application could add their screenlets? > > Thank you, > Bruno > > 2010/12/16 David E Jones <[hidden email]> > >> >> Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the framework more (or >> totally) independent from the applications and specialpurpose components. >> The only question is the best way to do that, and it looks like as far as a >> general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts from application >> components to framework components) a fair consensus is being reached >> quickly. >> >> Of course, this is helped by lots of previous discussion on this topic. >> >> -David >> >> >> On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: >> >>> I don't think you will find a consensus so just need to branch your own >> frame work as I did. >>> >>> >>> ========================= >>> BJ Freeman >>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation < >> http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> >>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> >>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist >>> >>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man >>> >>> >>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 10:40 AM: >>>> To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to >>>> run by themselves - without the components found in the applications >>>> folder. Some of the framework components have UIs. >>>> >>>> I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a >>>> framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to >>>> disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz >> run. >>>> >>>> -Adrian >>>> >>>> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: >>>>> first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework >> level. >>>>> Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put >> installed. >>>>> when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user. >>>>> >>>>> ========================= >>>>> BJ Freeman >>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation >>>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> >>>>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> >>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist >>>>> >>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: >>>>>> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm >>>>>> trying to get a framework-only installation to run. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. >>>>>> Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. >> The >>>>>> online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. >>>>>> Should we move the content component to the framework? >>>>>> >>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> |
|
|
I will be working on that today.
-Adrian --- On Sat, 12/18/10, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> wrote: > IMO the best way to go at this point > is to move the ui for the administration of user logins and > permissions from the party to the webtools web application. > In this way, in a framework only setup, we will have some > screens to create new user accounts and administer them. I > don't think that we have to provide screens addressed to > users (not administrators) to manage their user preferences: > the nature of this ui would be too much dependent on the > nature of the custom applications that will be used with the > framework. > > Kind regards, > > Jacopo > > On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Bruno Busco wrote: > > > By clicking on the party's name in the header the user > is directed to this > > screen: > > https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin > > > > Here there are lots of links and information related > to all kind of things: > > orders, invoices, visits etc. > > In a framework-only installation this screen should > only allow the user to > > access to its personal information, password, > preferences etc. > > How could we get this? > > Could we replace this screen with a (non > user-editable) PortalPage where > > every installed application could add their > screenlets? > > > > Thank you, > > Bruno > > > > 2010/12/16 David E Jones <[hidden email]> > > > >> > >> Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the > framework more (or > >> totally) independent from the applications and > specialpurpose components. > >> The only question is the best way to do that, and > it looks like as far as a > >> general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts > from application > >> components to framework components) a fair > consensus is being reached > >> quickly. > >> > >> Of course, this is helped by lots of previous > discussion on this topic. > >> > >> -David > >> > >> > >> On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: > >> > >>> I don't think you will find a consensus so > just need to branch your own > >> frame work as I did. > >>> > >>> > >>> ========================= > >>> BJ Freeman > >>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier > Automation < > >> http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> > >>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> > >>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist > >>> > >>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man > >>> > >>> > >>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 > 10:40 AM: > >>>> To clarify, I'm trying to get the > components in the framework folder to > >>>> run by themselves - without the components > found in the applications > >>>> folder. Some of the framework components > have UIs. > >>>> > >>>> I understand everyone has a different > opinion on what constitutes a > >>>> framework, so I don't want to rehash that > discussion. I just want to > >>>> disable the components in the applications > folder and still have OFBiz > >> run. > >>>> > >>>> -Adrian > >>>> > >>>> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: > >>>>> first question is should there be any > UI activity at the framework > >> level. > >>>>> Should not it just be the support to > allow a UI system to put > >> installed. > >>>>> when I mean UI I am talking about any > interaction to the user. > >>>>> > >>>>> ========================= > >>>>> BJ Freeman > >>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier > Automation > >>>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> > >>>>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> > >>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist > >>>>> > >>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on > 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: > >>>>>> I'm working on a project that > requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm > >>>>>> trying to get a framework-only > installation to run. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There are a lot of dependencies on > the party and content components. > >>>>>> Removing dependencies on the party > component should be fairly easy. > >> The > >>>>>> online help system uses the > content component, so that is an issue. > >>>>>> Should we move the content > component to the framework? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -Adrian > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > > |
|
|
Great! ;-)
2010/12/18 Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> > I will be working on that today. > > -Adrian > > --- On Sat, 12/18/10, Jacopo Cappellato <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > IMO the best way to go at this point > > is to move the ui for the administration of user logins and > > permissions from the party to the webtools web application. > > In this way, in a framework only setup, we will have some > > screens to create new user accounts and administer them. I > > don't think that we have to provide screens addressed to > > users (not administrators) to manage their user preferences: > > the nature of this ui would be too much dependent on the > > nature of the custom applications that will be used with the > > framework. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Jacopo > > > > On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Bruno Busco wrote: > > > > > By clicking on the party's name in the header the user > > is directed to this > > > screen: > > > > https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin > > > > > > Here there are lots of links and information related > > to all kind of things: > > > orders, invoices, visits etc. > > > In a framework-only installation this screen should > > only allow the user to > > > access to its personal information, password, > > preferences etc. > > > How could we get this? > > > Could we replace this screen with a (non > > user-editable) PortalPage where > > > every installed application could add their > > screenlets? > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Bruno > > > > > > 2010/12/16 David E Jones <[hidden email]> > > > > > >> > > >> Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the > > framework more (or > > >> totally) independent from the applications and > > specialpurpose components. > > >> The only question is the best way to do that, and > > it looks like as far as a > > >> general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts > > from application > > >> components to framework components) a fair > > consensus is being reached > > >> quickly. > > >> > > >> Of course, this is helped by lots of previous > > discussion on this topic. > > >> > > >> -David > > >> > > >> > > >> On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: > > >> > > >>> I don't think you will find a consensus so > > just need to branch your own > > >> frame work as I did. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ========================= > > >>> BJ Freeman > > >>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier > > Automation < > > >> http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> > > >>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> > > >>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist > > >>> > > >>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 > > 10:40 AM: > > >>>> To clarify, I'm trying to get the > > components in the framework folder to > > >>>> run by themselves - without the components > > found in the applications > > >>>> folder. Some of the framework components > > have UIs. > > >>>> > > >>>> I understand everyone has a different > > opinion on what constitutes a > > >>>> framework, so I don't want to rehash that > > discussion. I just want to > > >>>> disable the components in the applications > > folder and still have OFBiz > > >> run. > > >>>> > > >>>> -Adrian > > >>>> > > >>>> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: > > >>>>> first question is should there be any > > UI activity at the framework > > >> level. > > >>>>> Should not it just be the support to > > allow a UI system to put > > >> installed. > > >>>>> when I mean UI I am talking about any > > interaction to the user. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> ========================= > > >>>>> BJ Freeman > > >>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier > > Automation > > >>>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> > > >>>>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> > > >>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on > > 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: > > >>>>>> I'm working on a project that > > requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm > > >>>>>> trying to get a framework-only > > installation to run. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> There are a lot of dependencies on > > the party and content components. > > >>>>>> Removing dependencies on the party > > component should be fairly easy. > > >> The > > >>>>>> online help system uses the > > content component, so that is an issue. > > >>>>>> Should we move the content > > component to the framework? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> -Adrian > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Adrian Crum-2
I am nearly finished with the security UI artifacts move. I have one
issue preventing me from finishing it and I need some help from the community. The updated code has Party Manager reusing security screens and forms from the common component. It all works great with a few exceptions. The user login screenlet in the View Profile page has links to special screens for adding/editing user logins and assigning user logins to security groups. The forms in those screens are from the common component and they call shared security events - so the user is returned to the shared security screen and not the Party Manager special screen. I need a way to dynamically define the "success" response view on an event. To illustrate, this request: <request-map uri="ProfileEditUserLogin"> <security https="true" auth="true"/> <response name="success" type="view" value="ProfileEditUserLogin"/> </request-map> will invoke this event when the user clicks Save: <request-map uri="updateUserLoginSecurity"> <security https="true" auth="true"/> <event type="service" path="" invoke="updateUserLoginSecurity"/> <response name="success" type="view" value="EditUserLogin"/> <response name="error" type="view" value="EditUserLogin"/> </request-map> because Party Manager shares a security-related controller XML file and screen widgets. I need the updateUserLoginSecurity event to return to the ProfileEditUserLogin screen instead of EditUserLogin - but without changing the shared updateUserLoginSecurity request-map. I thought I could use the view-save and view-last stuff, but I can't find any documentation on how it works. I tried using it based on existing code but I'm not having any success. Any ideas? -Adrian On 12/18/2010 7:18 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > I will be working on that today. > > -Adrian > > --- On Sat, 12/18/10, Jacopo Cappellato<[hidden email]> wrote: >> IMO the best way to go at this point >> is to move the ui for the administration of user logins and >> permissions from the party to the webtools web application. >> In this way, in a framework only setup, we will have some >> screens to create new user accounts and administer them. I >> don't think that we have to provide screens addressed to >> users (not administrators) to manage their user preferences: >> the nature of this ui would be too much dependent on the >> nature of the custom applications that will be used with the >> framework. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Jacopo >> >> On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Bruno Busco wrote: >> >>> By clicking on the party's name in the header the user >> is directed to this >>> screen: >>> https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin >>> >>> Here there are lots of links and information related >> to all kind of things: >>> orders, invoices, visits etc. >>> In a framework-only installation this screen should >> only allow the user to >>> access to its personal information, password, >> preferences etc. >>> How could we get this? >>> Could we replace this screen with a (non >> user-editable) PortalPage where >>> every installed application could add their >> screenlets? >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Bruno >>> >>> 2010/12/16 David E Jones<[hidden email]> >>> >>>> >>>> Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the >> framework more (or >>>> totally) independent from the applications and >> specialpurpose components. >>>> The only question is the best way to do that, and >> it looks like as far as a >>>> general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts >> from application >>>> components to framework components) a fair >> consensus is being reached >>>> quickly. >>>> >>>> Of course, this is helped by lots of previous >> discussion on this topic. >>>> >>>> -David >>>> >>>> >>>> On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't think you will find a consensus so >> just need to branch your own >>>> frame work as I did. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ========================= >>>>> BJ Freeman >>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier >> Automation< >>>> http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> >>>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/> >>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist >>>>> >>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 >> 10:40 AM: >>>>>> To clarify, I'm trying to get the >> components in the framework folder to >>>>>> run by themselves - without the components >> found in the applications >>>>>> folder. Some of the framework components >> have UIs. >>>>>> >>>>>> I understand everyone has a different >> opinion on what constitutes a >>>>>> framework, so I don't want to rehash that >> discussion. I just want to >>>>>> disable the components in the applications >> folder and still have OFBiz >>>> run. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: >>>>>>> first question is should there be any >> UI activity at the framework >>>> level. >>>>>>> Should not it just be the support to >> allow a UI system to put >>>> installed. >>>>>>> when I mean UI I am talking about any >> interaction to the user. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ========================= >>>>>>> BJ Freeman >>>>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier >> Automation >>>>>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> >>>>>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/> >>>>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on >> 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: >>>>>>>> I'm working on a project that >> requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm >>>>>>>> trying to get a framework-only >> installation to run. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are a lot of dependencies on >> the party and content components. >>>>>>>> Removing dependencies on the party >> component should be fairly easy. >>>> The >>>>>>>> online help system uses the >> content component, so that is an issue. >>>>>>>> Should we move the content >> component to the framework? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> > > > > |
|
|
Hi Adrian,
did you look into portla-controller.xml ? I used several save-last-view there. -Bruno 2010/12/21 Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> > I am nearly finished with the security UI artifacts move. I have one issue > preventing me from finishing it and I need some help from the community. > > The updated code has Party Manager reusing security screens and forms from > the common component. It all works great with a few exceptions. The user > login screenlet in the View Profile page has links to special screens for > adding/editing user logins and assigning user logins to security groups. The > forms in those screens are from the common component and they call shared > security events - so the user is returned to the shared security screen and > not the Party Manager special screen. I need a way to dynamically define the > "success" response view on an event. > > To illustrate, this request: > > <request-map uri="ProfileEditUserLogin"> > <security https="true" auth="true"/> > <response name="success" type="view" value="ProfileEditUserLogin"/> > </request-map> > > will invoke this event when the user clicks Save: > > <request-map uri="updateUserLoginSecurity"> > <security https="true" auth="true"/> > <event type="service" path="" invoke="updateUserLoginSecurity"/> > <response name="success" type="view" value="EditUserLogin"/> > <response name="error" type="view" value="EditUserLogin"/> > </request-map> > > because Party Manager shares a security-related controller XML file and > screen widgets. I need the updateUserLoginSecurity event to return to the > ProfileEditUserLogin screen instead of EditUserLogin - but without changing > the shared updateUserLoginSecurity request-map. > > I thought I could use the view-save and view-last stuff, but I can't find > any documentation on how it works. I tried using it based on existing code > but I'm not having any success. > > Any ideas? > > -Adrian > > > > > On 12/18/2010 7:18 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > >> I will be working on that today. >> >> -Adrian >> >> --- On Sat, 12/18/10, Jacopo Cappellato<[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >>> IMO the best way to go at this point >>> is to move the ui for the administration of user logins and >>> permissions from the party to the webtools web application. >>> In this way, in a framework only setup, we will have some >>> screens to create new user accounts and administer them. I >>> don't think that we have to provide screens addressed to >>> users (not administrators) to manage their user preferences: >>> the nature of this ui would be too much dependent on the >>> nature of the custom applications that will be used with the >>> framework. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Jacopo >>> >>> On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Bruno Busco wrote: >>> >>> By clicking on the party's name in the header the user >>>> >>> is directed to this >>> >>>> screen: >>>> >>>> https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin >>>> >>>> Here there are lots of links and information related >>>> >>> to all kind of things: >>> >>>> orders, invoices, visits etc. >>>> In a framework-only installation this screen should >>>> >>> only allow the user to >>> >>>> access to its personal information, password, >>>> >>> preferences etc. >>> >>>> How could we get this? >>>> Could we replace this screen with a (non >>>> >>> user-editable) PortalPage where >>> >>>> every installed application could add their >>>> >>> screenlets? >>> >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Bruno >>>> >>>> 2010/12/16 David E Jones<[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the >>>>> >>>> framework more (or >>> >>>> totally) independent from the applications and >>>>> >>>> specialpurpose components. >>> >>>> The only question is the best way to do that, and >>>>> >>>> it looks like as far as a >>> >>>> general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts >>>>> >>>> from application >>> >>>> components to framework components) a fair >>>>> >>>> consensus is being reached >>> >>>> quickly. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, this is helped by lots of previous >>>>> >>>> discussion on this topic. >>> >>>> >>>>> -David >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I don't think you will find a consensus so >>>>>> >>>>> just need to branch your own >>> >>>> frame work as I did. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ========================= >>>>>> BJ Freeman >>>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier >>>>>> >>>>> Automation< >>> >>>> http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> >>>>> >>>>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/> >>>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist >>>>>> >>>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 >>>>>> >>>>> 10:40 AM: >>> >>>> To clarify, I'm trying to get the >>>>>>> >>>>>> components in the framework folder to >>> >>>> run by themselves - without the components >>>>>>> >>>>>> found in the applications >>> >>>> folder. Some of the framework components >>>>>>> >>>>>> have UIs. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> I understand everyone has a different >>>>>>> >>>>>> opinion on what constitutes a >>> >>>> framework, so I don't want to rehash that >>>>>>> >>>>>> discussion. I just want to >>> >>>> disable the components in the applications >>>>>>> >>>>>> folder and still have OFBiz >>> >>>> run. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> first question is should there be any >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> UI activity at the framework >>> >>>> level. >>>>> >>>>>> Should not it just be the support to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> allow a UI system to put >>> >>>> installed. >>>>> >>>>>> when I mean UI I am talking about any >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> interaction to the user. >>> >>>> >>>>>>>> ========================= >>>>>>>> BJ Freeman >>>>>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Automation >>> >>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> >>>>>>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/> >>>>>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: >>> >>>> I'm working on a project that >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm >>> >>>> trying to get a framework-only >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> installation to run. >>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> There are a lot of dependencies on >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the party and content components. >>> >>>> Removing dependencies on the party >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> component should be fairly easy. >>> >>>> The >>>>> >>>>>> online help system uses the >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> content component, so that is an issue. >>> >>>> Should we move the content >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> component to the framework? >>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> |
|
|
I have looked at a number of existing examples, but I still don't know
how it works or what I need to do to solve my problem. -Adrian On 12/21/2010 1:18 PM, Bruno Busco wrote: > Hi Adrian, > did you look into portla-controller.xml ? > I used several save-last-view there. > > -Bruno > > 2010/12/21 Adrian Crum<[hidden email]> > >> I am nearly finished with the security UI artifacts move. I have one issue >> preventing me from finishing it and I need some help from the community. >> >> The updated code has Party Manager reusing security screens and forms from >> the common component. It all works great with a few exceptions. The user >> login screenlet in the View Profile page has links to special screens for >> adding/editing user logins and assigning user logins to security groups. The >> forms in those screens are from the common component and they call shared >> security events - so the user is returned to the shared security screen and >> not the Party Manager special screen. I need a way to dynamically define the >> "success" response view on an event. >> >> To illustrate, this request: >> >> <request-map uri="ProfileEditUserLogin"> >> <security https="true" auth="true"/> >> <response name="success" type="view" value="ProfileEditUserLogin"/> >> </request-map> >> >> will invoke this event when the user clicks Save: >> >> <request-map uri="updateUserLoginSecurity"> >> <security https="true" auth="true"/> >> <event type="service" path="" invoke="updateUserLoginSecurity"/> >> <response name="success" type="view" value="EditUserLogin"/> >> <response name="error" type="view" value="EditUserLogin"/> >> </request-map> >> >> because Party Manager shares a security-related controller XML file and >> screen widgets. I need the updateUserLoginSecurity event to return to the >> ProfileEditUserLogin screen instead of EditUserLogin - but without changing >> the shared updateUserLoginSecurity request-map. >> >> I thought I could use the view-save and view-last stuff, but I can't find >> any documentation on how it works. I tried using it based on existing code >> but I'm not having any success. >> >> Any ideas? >> >> -Adrian >> >> >> >> >> On 12/18/2010 7:18 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> >>> I will be working on that today. >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >>> --- On Sat, 12/18/10, Jacopo Cappellato<[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> IMO the best way to go at this point >>>> is to move the ui for the administration of user logins and >>>> permissions from the party to the webtools web application. >>>> In this way, in a framework only setup, we will have some >>>> screens to create new user accounts and administer them. I >>>> don't think that we have to provide screens addressed to >>>> users (not administrators) to manage their user preferences: >>>> the nature of this ui would be too much dependent on the >>>> nature of the custom applications that will be used with the >>>> framework. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> Jacopo >>>> >>>> On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Bruno Busco wrote: >>>> >>>> By clicking on the party's name in the header the user >>>>> >>>> is directed to this >>>> >>>>> screen: >>>>> >>>>> https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin >>>>> >>>>> Here there are lots of links and information related >>>>> >>>> to all kind of things: >>>> >>>>> orders, invoices, visits etc. >>>>> In a framework-only installation this screen should >>>>> >>>> only allow the user to >>>> >>>>> access to its personal information, password, >>>>> >>>> preferences etc. >>>> >>>>> How could we get this? >>>>> Could we replace this screen with a (non >>>>> >>>> user-editable) PortalPage where >>>> >>>>> every installed application could add their >>>>> >>>> screenlets? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> Bruno >>>>> >>>>> 2010/12/16 David E Jones<[hidden email]> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the >>>>>> >>>>> framework more (or >>>> >>>>> totally) independent from the applications and >>>>>> >>>>> specialpurpose components. >>>> >>>>> The only question is the best way to do that, and >>>>>> >>>>> it looks like as far as a >>>> >>>>> general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts >>>>>> >>>>> from application >>>> >>>>> components to framework components) a fair >>>>>> >>>>> consensus is being reached >>>> >>>>> quickly. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course, this is helped by lots of previous >>>>>> >>>>> discussion on this topic. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -David >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think you will find a consensus so >>>>>>> >>>>>> just need to branch your own >>>> >>>>> frame work as I did. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ========================= >>>>>>> BJ Freeman >>>>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier >>>>>>> >>>>>> Automation< >>>> >>>>> http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/> >>>>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 >>>>>>> >>>>>> 10:40 AM: >>>> >>>>> To clarify, I'm trying to get the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> components in the framework folder to >>>> >>>>> run by themselves - without the components >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> found in the applications >>>> >>>>> folder. Some of the framework components >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> have UIs. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> I understand everyone has a different >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> opinion on what constitutes a >>>> >>>>> framework, so I don't want to rehash that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> discussion. I just want to >>>> >>>>> disable the components in the applications >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> folder and still have OFBiz >>>> >>>>> run. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> first question is should there be any >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> UI activity at the framework >>>> >>>>> level. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Should not it just be the support to >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> allow a UI system to put >>>> >>>>> installed. >>>>>> >>>>>>> when I mean UI I am talking about any >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> interaction to the user. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> ========================= >>>>>>>>> BJ Freeman >>>>>>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Automation >>>> >>>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> >>>>>>>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/> >>>>>>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: >>>> >>>>> I'm working on a project that >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm >>>> >>>>> trying to get a framework-only >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> installation to run. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There are a lot of dependencies on >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the party and content components. >>>> >>>>> Removing dependencies on the party >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> component should be fairly easy. >>>> >>>>> The >>>>>> >>>>>>> online help system uses the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> content component, so that is an issue. >>>> >>>>> Should we move the content >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> component to the framework? >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Adrian Crum
I ended up parameterizing the form's target attribute to get the results
I needed. I will be offline for the holiday, then I will resume work on this next week. -Adrian On 12/21/2010 12:35 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > I am nearly finished with the security UI artifacts move. I have one > issue preventing me from finishing it and I need some help from the > community. > > The updated code has Party Manager reusing security screens and forms > from the common component. It all works great with a few exceptions. The > user login screenlet in the View Profile page has links to special > screens for adding/editing user logins and assigning user logins to > security groups. The forms in those screens are from the common > component and they call shared security events - so the user is returned > to the shared security screen and not the Party Manager special screen. > I need a way to dynamically define the "success" response view on an event. > > To illustrate, this request: > > <request-map uri="ProfileEditUserLogin"> > <security https="true" auth="true"/> > <response name="success" type="view" value="ProfileEditUserLogin"/> > </request-map> > > will invoke this event when the user clicks Save: > > <request-map uri="updateUserLoginSecurity"> > <security https="true" auth="true"/> > <event type="service" path="" invoke="updateUserLoginSecurity"/> > <response name="success" type="view" value="EditUserLogin"/> > <response name="error" type="view" value="EditUserLogin"/> > </request-map> > > because Party Manager shares a security-related controller XML file and > screen widgets. I need the updateUserLoginSecurity event to return to > the ProfileEditUserLogin screen instead of EditUserLogin - but without > changing the shared updateUserLoginSecurity request-map. > > I thought I could use the view-save and view-last stuff, but I can't > find any documentation on how it works. I tried using it based on > existing code but I'm not having any success. > > Any ideas? > > -Adrian > > > > On 12/18/2010 7:18 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> I will be working on that today. >> >> -Adrian >> >> --- On Sat, 12/18/10, Jacopo >> Cappellato<[hidden email]> wrote: >>> IMO the best way to go at this point >>> is to move the ui for the administration of user logins and >>> permissions from the party to the webtools web application. >>> In this way, in a framework only setup, we will have some >>> screens to create new user accounts and administer them. I >>> don't think that we have to provide screens addressed to >>> users (not administrators) to manage their user preferences: >>> the nature of this ui would be too much dependent on the >>> nature of the custom applications that will be used with the >>> framework. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Jacopo >>> >>> On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Bruno Busco wrote: >>> >>>> By clicking on the party's name in the header the user >>> is directed to this >>>> screen: >>>> https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin >>>> >>>> >>>> Here there are lots of links and information related >>> to all kind of things: >>>> orders, invoices, visits etc. >>>> In a framework-only installation this screen should >>> only allow the user to >>>> access to its personal information, password, >>> preferences etc. >>>> How could we get this? >>>> Could we replace this screen with a (non >>> user-editable) PortalPage where >>>> every installed application could add their >>> screenlets? >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Bruno >>>> >>>> 2010/12/16 David E Jones<[hidden email]> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the >>> framework more (or >>>>> totally) independent from the applications and >>> specialpurpose components. >>>>> The only question is the best way to do that, and >>> it looks like as far as a >>>>> general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts >>> from application >>>>> components to framework components) a fair >>> consensus is being reached >>>>> quickly. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, this is helped by lots of previous >>> discussion on this topic. >>>>> >>>>> -David >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I don't think you will find a consensus so >>> just need to branch your own >>>>> frame work as I did. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ========================= >>>>>> BJ Freeman >>>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier >>> Automation< >>>>> http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> >>>>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/> >>>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist >>>>>> >>>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 >>> 10:40 AM: >>>>>>> To clarify, I'm trying to get the >>> components in the framework folder to >>>>>>> run by themselves - without the components >>> found in the applications >>>>>>> folder. Some of the framework components >>> have UIs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I understand everyone has a different >>> opinion on what constitutes a >>>>>>> framework, so I don't want to rehash that >>> discussion. I just want to >>>>>>> disable the components in the applications >>> folder and still have OFBiz >>>>> run. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: >>>>>>>> first question is should there be any >>> UI activity at the framework >>>>> level. >>>>>>>> Should not it just be the support to >>> allow a UI system to put >>>>> installed. >>>>>>>> when I mean UI I am talking about any >>> interaction to the user. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ========================= >>>>>>>> BJ Freeman >>>>>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier >>> Automation >>>>>>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> >>>>>>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/> >>>>>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on >>> 12/15/2010 9:52 AM: >>>>>>>>> I'm working on a project that >>> requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm >>>>>>>>> trying to get a framework-only >>> installation to run. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are a lot of dependencies on >>> the party and content components. >>>>>>>>> Removing dependencies on the party >>> component should be fairly easy. >>>>> The >>>>>>>>> online help system uses the >>> content component, so that is an issue. >>>>>>>>> Should we move the content >>> component to the framework? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > |
«
Return to OFBiz - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |