Re: svn commit: r795024 [1/6] - in /ofbiz/branches/executionconte
Locked
123
123
Re: Discussion: ExecutionContext
 
|
David,
I've tried to make things clear. I don't know how to make it any clearer. I'll try to go over it again... Yes, I reviewed your branch. I tried to use it, but I can't - because it won't compile. As proof that I spent time with it, look at the commit log - I fixed the build.xml file and added a missing folder. That branch is hopelessly out of date. We can't expect the community to stop development in the trunk just because it might interfere with the branch. I suggested starting a new branch and bringing your changes into it a little at a time - always making sure that it will build and run. You didn't reply. You replied to another message asking me to create a new branch so that you can review the work I've done. I created that branch. Since then, I have used that branch to build out the ExecutionContext and security redesign - based on the work you did in the branch you created. In your branch you created a GenericDelegator interface. I extracted the GenericDelegator interface in the trunk. You objected and asked me to revert it. In your branch you created an EntityListIterator interface. I'm suggesting we do the same thing in the trunk. Again, you're objecting to it. I honestly don't see what the problem is here. I'm doing exactly what you did, only I'm doing it a small step at a time instead of trying to rewrite the whole framework in one pass. That's how I work: make a change, test, make another change, test... I've given up trying to use your branch - not because you have no say anymore = but because your branch is unusable. The branch I created builds and runs, it has a working implementation of the ExecutionContext, it has a nearly completed security-aware artifact implementation, and it is synchronized with the trunk. I used your branch as a guide - the work I've done is compatible with it. You're right - you've been away for a while. In the meantime, the project marches forward. I'm sorry if that frustrates you. -Adrian --- On Fri, 8/21/09, David E Jones <[hidden email]> wrote: > From: David E Jones <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: Discussion: ExecutionContext > To: [hidden email] > Date: Friday, August 21, 2009, 7:51 PM > > I hope you understand that this is yet another change that > conflicts with what I put in the branch... > > Again, is it your intention to ignore that work and move in > a different direction making it difficult (or impossible > without re-changing various things) to get that finished and > merged back in? > > I suppose I've been out a lot for the last couple of weeks > and so I haven't been able to finish this, so perhaps I have > no say any more... except what I've said before that you > REALLY need to think through to the end goal before trying > to make interim steps that may turn out to not be helpful at > all... and if no one else cares... why should I? > > -David > > > On Aug 20, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > > > Actually, I just converted EntityListIterator to an > interface and everything works fine. It ended up being a > trivial change. > > > > I'll wait for any objections before committing it. > > > > -Adrian > > > > Adrian Crum wrote: > >> One problem I just ran into while implementing the > security redesign: > >> EntityListIterator implements ListIterator, but > code throughout the project references EntityListIterator (a > concrete class) instead of ListIterator (an interface). > >> I would like to refactor that so that the > interface is used instead of the concrete class. What do you > think? > >> -Adrian > >> Adrian Crum wrote: > >>> --- On Wed, 8/12/09, Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> Let's say we're working on the entity > component. Just > >>>> extract interfaces from the commonly used > classes, move them > >>>> to framework/api, update import > statements, compile, test, > >>>> commit. It seems pretty straightforward to > me. > >>> > >>> Crow tastes nasty. > >>> > >>> After trying to implement my example, I can > see the problems. Wow, that is ugly. One thing is certain, > we're very good at painting ourselves into corners. > >>> > >>> -Adrian > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com |
Re: Discussion: ExecutionContext
|
|
On Aug 21, 2009, at 9:42 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > David, > > I've tried to make things clear. I don't know how to make it any > clearer. I'll try to go over it again... > > Yes, I reviewed your branch. I tried to use it, but I can't - > because it won't compile. As proof that I spent time with it, look > at the commit log - I fixed the build.xml file and added a missing > folder. Yes, it won't compile... but what does that have to do with anything? It's not _supposed_ to be able to compile right now as its a work in progress toward a specific goal for specific reasons as I wrote up before. > That branch is hopelessly out of date. We can't expect the community > to stop development in the trunk just because it might interfere > with the branch. It is hopefully out of date only because of the changes you've made, as I've been pointing out. > I suggested starting a new branch and bringing your changes into it > a little at a time - always making sure that it will build and run. > You didn't reply. You replied to another message asking me to create > a new branch so that you can review the work I've done. I created > that branch. I did reply. I reviewed your work and replied with comments on the direction and problems you would likely run into... which you did run into. However, that didn't seem to help adjust the direction of things, so... > Since then, I have used that branch to build out the > ExecutionContext and security redesign - based on the work you did > in the branch you created. > > In your branch you created a GenericDelegator interface. I extracted > the GenericDelegator interface in the trunk. You objected and asked > me to revert it. In your branch you created an EntityListIterator > interface. I'm suggesting we do the same thing in the trunk. Again, > you're objecting to it. > > I honestly don't see what the problem is here. I'm doing exactly > what you did, only I'm doing it a small step at a time instead of > trying to rewrite the whole framework in one pass. That's how I > work: make a change, test, make another change, test... > > I've given up trying to use your branch - not because you have no > say anymore = but because your branch is unusable. The branch I > created builds and runs, it has a working implementation of the > ExecutionContext, it has a nearly completed security-aware artifact > implementation, and it is synchronized with the trunk. I used your > branch as a guide - the work I've done is compatible with it. You don't see what the problem is here... and that is the problem. You gave on trying to understand and use the work that I did, throwing it away, and at the same time are running into problems that I already solved there... so... what to be done? > You're right - you've been away for a while. In the meantime, the > project marches forward. I'm sorry if that frustrates you. Nope, not at all. Please go right on ahead, it is not my intent to stop you, but rather to hopefully smooth things out and help. I can't keep an eye everything. As I said before, if no one else cares about these issues, why should I? And so the answer is, I guess I don't. I'm going to work on other things. -David > --- On Fri, 8/21/09, David E Jones <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> From: David E Jones <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: Discussion: ExecutionContext >> To: [hidden email] >> Date: Friday, August 21, 2009, 7:51 PM >> >> I hope you understand that this is yet another change that >> conflicts with what I put in the branch... >> >> Again, is it your intention to ignore that work and move in >> a different direction making it difficult (or impossible >> without re-changing various things) to get that finished and >> merged back in? >> >> I suppose I've been out a lot for the last couple of weeks >> and so I haven't been able to finish this, so perhaps I have >> no say any more... except what I've said before that you >> REALLY need to think through to the end goal before trying >> to make interim steps that may turn out to not be helpful at >> all... and if no one else cares... why should I? >> >> -David >> >> >> On Aug 20, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> >>> Actually, I just converted EntityListIterator to an >> interface and everything works fine. It ended up being a >> trivial change. >>> >>> I'll wait for any objections before committing it. >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >>> Adrian Crum wrote: >>>> One problem I just ran into while implementing the >> security redesign: >>>> EntityListIterator implements ListIterator, but >> code throughout the project references EntityListIterator (a >> concrete class) instead of ListIterator (an interface). >>>> I would like to refactor that so that the >> interface is used instead of the concrete class. What do you >> think? >>>> -Adrian >>>> Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>> --- On Wed, 8/12/09, Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Let's say we're working on the entity >> component. Just >>>>>> extract interfaces from the commonly used >> classes, move them >>>>>> to framework/api, update import >> statements, compile, test, >>>>>> commit. It seems pretty straightforward to >> me. >>>>> >>>>> Crow tastes nasty. >>>>> >>>>> After trying to implement my example, I can >> see the problems. Wow, that is ugly. One thing is certain, >> we're very good at painting ourselves into corners. >>>>> >>>>> -Adrian >> >> > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > |
Re: Discussion: ExecutionContext
|
|
David,
What problems did I run into? The only thing I don't like is the cross-dependency problem (or as you call it, circular-dependency). I would love to see that issue solved in the manner you have envisioned. I am 100% in agreement with your goals. But I don't see it happening anytime soon. Like you said, you've got more important things to do. In the meantime, I would really like to get the security redesign finished. How can I do that when I can't get the branch to compile? The branch I created - like yours - is a work in progress. But it compiles. How else can I test my changes? You're being disingenuous when you say I gave up trying to understand and use the work that you did, throwing it away. Haven't you been paying attention? Spend a little time reading my replies (especially my last one) and you'll see that isn't true. -Adrian --- On Fri, 8/21/09, David E Jones <[hidden email]> wrote: > From: David E Jones <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: Discussion: ExecutionContext > To: [hidden email] > Date: Friday, August 21, 2009, 9:13 PM > > On Aug 21, 2009, at 9:42 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > > > David, > > > > I've tried to make things clear. I don't know how to > make it any clearer. I'll try to go over it again... > > > > Yes, I reviewed your branch. I tried to use it, but I > can't - because it won't compile. As proof that I spent time > with it, look at the commit log - I fixed the build.xml file > and added a missing folder. > > Yes, it won't compile... but what does that have to do with > anything? It's not _supposed_ to be able to compile right > now as its a work in progress toward a specific goal for > specific reasons as I wrote up before. > > > That branch is hopelessly out of date. We can't expect > the community to stop development in the trunk just because > it might interfere with the branch. > > It is hopefully out of date only because of the changes > you've made, as I've been pointing out. > > > I suggested starting a new branch and bringing your > changes into it a little at a time - always making sure that > it will build and run. You didn't reply. You replied to > another message asking me to create a new branch so that you > can review the work I've done. I created that branch. > > I did reply. I reviewed your work and replied with comments > on the direction and problems you would likely run into... > which you did run into. However, that didn't seem to help > adjust the direction of things, so... > > > Since then, I have used that branch to build out the > ExecutionContext and security redesign - based on the work > you did in the branch you created. > > > > In your branch you created a GenericDelegator > interface. I extracted the GenericDelegator interface in the > trunk. You objected and asked me to revert it. In your > branch you created an EntityListIterator interface. I'm > suggesting we do the same thing in the trunk. Again, you're > objecting to it. > > > > I honestly don't see what the problem is here. I'm > doing exactly what you did, only I'm doing it a small step > at a time instead of trying to rewrite the whole framework > in one pass. That's how I work: make a change, test, make > another change, test... > > > > I've given up trying to use your branch - not because > you have no say anymore = but because your branch is > unusable. The branch I created builds and runs, it has a > working implementation of the ExecutionContext, it has a > nearly completed security-aware artifact implementation, and > it is synchronized with the trunk. I used your branch as a > guide - the work I've done is compatible with it. > > You don't see what the problem is here... and that is the > problem. You gave on trying to understand and use the work > that I did, throwing it away, and at the same time are > running into problems that I already solved there... so... > what to be done? > > > You're right - you've been away for a while. In the > meantime, the project marches forward. I'm sorry if that > frustrates you. > > Nope, not at all. Please go right on ahead, it is not my > intent to stop you, but rather to hopefully smooth things > out and help. I can't keep an eye everything. As I said > before, if no one else cares about these issues, why should > I? And so the answer is, I guess I don't. I'm going to work > on other things. > > -David > > > > > --- On Fri, 8/21/09, David E Jones <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > >> From: David E Jones <[hidden email]> > >> Subject: Re: Discussion: ExecutionContext > >> To: [hidden email] > >> Date: Friday, August 21, 2009, 7:51 PM > >> > >> I hope you understand that this is yet another > change that > >> conflicts with what I put in the branch... > >> > >> Again, is it your intention to ignore that work > and move in > >> a different direction making it difficult (or > impossible > >> without re-changing various things) to get that > finished and > >> merged back in? > >> > >> I suppose I've been out a lot for the last couple > of weeks > >> and so I haven't been able to finish this, so > perhaps I have > >> no say any more... except what I've said before > that you > >> REALLY need to think through to the end goal > before trying > >> to make interim steps that may turn out to not be > helpful at > >> all... and if no one else cares... why should I? > >> > >> -David > >> > >> > >> On Aug 20, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > >> > >>> Actually, I just converted EntityListIterator > to an > >> interface and everything works fine. It ended up > being a > >> trivial change. > >>> > >>> I'll wait for any objections before committing > it. > >>> > >>> -Adrian > >>> > >>> Adrian Crum wrote: > >>>> One problem I just ran into while > implementing the > >> security redesign: > >>>> EntityListIterator implements > ListIterator, but > >> code throughout the project references > EntityListIterator (a > >> concrete class) instead of ListIterator (an > interface). > >>>> I would like to refactor that so that the > >> interface is used instead of the concrete class. > What do you > >> think? > >>>> -Adrian > >>>> Adrian Crum wrote: > >>>>> --- On Wed, 8/12/09, Adrian Crum > <[hidden email]> > >> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Let's say we're working on the > entity > >> component. Just > >>>>>> extract interfaces from the > commonly used > >> classes, move them > >>>>>> to framework/api, update import > >> statements, compile, test, > >>>>>> commit. It seems pretty > straightforward to > >> me. > >>>>> > >>>>> Crow tastes nasty. > >>>>> > >>>>> After trying to implement my example, > I can > >> see the problems. Wow, that is ugly. One thing is > certain, > >> we're very good at painting ourselves into > corners. > >>>>> > >>>>> -Adrian > >> > >> > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > |
Re: Discussion: ExecutionContext
|
|
In reply to this post by David E. Jones-2
I just reread this, and it sounds pretty harsh, so I apologize for that. It's great that you are working on things and putting effort into these improvements, however they turn out. -David On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:13 PM, David E Jones wrote: > On Aug 21, 2009, at 9:42 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > >> David, >> >> I've tried to make things clear. I don't know how to make it any >> clearer. I'll try to go over it again... >> >> Yes, I reviewed your branch. I tried to use it, but I can't - >> because it won't compile. As proof that I spent time with it, look >> at the commit log - I fixed the build.xml file and added a missing >> folder. > > Yes, it won't compile... but what does that have to do with > anything? It's not _supposed_ to be able to compile right now as its > a work in progress toward a specific goal for specific reasons as I > wrote up before. > >> That branch is hopelessly out of date. We can't expect the >> community to stop development in the trunk just because it might >> interfere with the branch. > > It is hopefully out of date only because of the changes you've made, > as I've been pointing out. > >> I suggested starting a new branch and bringing your changes into it >> a little at a time - always making sure that it will build and run. >> You didn't reply. You replied to another message asking me to >> create a new branch so that you can review the work I've done. I >> created that branch. > > I did reply. I reviewed your work and replied with comments on the > direction and problems you would likely run into... which you did > run into. However, that didn't seem to help adjust the direction of > things, so... > >> Since then, I have used that branch to build out the >> ExecutionContext and security redesign - based on the work you did >> in the branch you created. >> >> In your branch you created a GenericDelegator interface. I >> extracted the GenericDelegator interface in the trunk. You objected >> and asked me to revert it. In your branch you created an >> EntityListIterator interface. I'm suggesting we do the same thing >> in the trunk. Again, you're objecting to it. >> >> I honestly don't see what the problem is here. I'm doing exactly >> what you did, only I'm doing it a small step at a time instead of >> trying to rewrite the whole framework in one pass. That's how I >> work: make a change, test, make another change, test... >> >> I've given up trying to use your branch - not because you have no >> say anymore = but because your branch is unusable. The branch I >> created builds and runs, it has a working implementation of the >> ExecutionContext, it has a nearly completed security-aware artifact >> implementation, and it is synchronized with the trunk. I used your >> branch as a guide - the work I've done is compatible with it. > > You don't see what the problem is here... and that is the problem. > You gave on trying to understand and use the work that I did, > throwing it away, and at the same time are running into problems > that I already solved there... so... what to be done? > >> You're right - you've been away for a while. In the meantime, the >> project marches forward. I'm sorry if that frustrates you. > > Nope, not at all. Please go right on ahead, it is not my intent to > stop you, but rather to hopefully smooth things out and help. I > can't keep an eye everything. As I said before, if no one else cares > about these issues, why should I? And so the answer is, I guess I > don't. I'm going to work on other things. > > -David > > > >> --- On Fri, 8/21/09, David E Jones <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> From: David E Jones <[hidden email]> >>> Subject: Re: Discussion: ExecutionContext >>> To: [hidden email] >>> Date: Friday, August 21, 2009, 7:51 PM >>> >>> I hope you understand that this is yet another change that >>> conflicts with what I put in the branch... >>> >>> Again, is it your intention to ignore that work and move in >>> a different direction making it difficult (or impossible >>> without re-changing various things) to get that finished and >>> merged back in? >>> >>> I suppose I've been out a lot for the last couple of weeks >>> and so I haven't been able to finish this, so perhaps I have >>> no say any more... except what I've said before that you >>> REALLY need to think through to the end goal before trying >>> to make interim steps that may turn out to not be helpful at >>> all... and if no one else cares... why should I? >>> >>> -David >>> >>> >>> On Aug 20, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>> >>>> Actually, I just converted EntityListIterator to an >>> interface and everything works fine. It ended up being a >>> trivial change. >>>> >>>> I'll wait for any objections before committing it. >>>> >>>> -Adrian >>>> >>>> Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>> One problem I just ran into while implementing the >>> security redesign: >>>>> EntityListIterator implements ListIterator, but >>> code throughout the project references EntityListIterator (a >>> concrete class) instead of ListIterator (an interface). >>>>> I would like to refactor that so that the >>> interface is used instead of the concrete class. What do you >>> think? >>>>> -Adrian >>>>> Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>> --- On Wed, 8/12/09, Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Let's say we're working on the entity >>> component. Just >>>>>>> extract interfaces from the commonly used >>> classes, move them >>>>>>> to framework/api, update import >>> statements, compile, test, >>>>>>> commit. It seems pretty straightforward to >>> me. >>>>>> >>>>>> Crow tastes nasty. >>>>>> >>>>>> After trying to implement my example, I can >>> see the problems. Wow, that is ugly. One thing is certain, >>> we're very good at painting ourselves into corners. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Adrian >>> >>> >> >> __________________________________________________ >> Do You Yahoo!? >> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >> http://mail.yahoo.com >> > |
Re: Discussion: ExecutionContext
|
|
David,
Thanks! Just let me get this security redesign finished, then I'll start working on the cross-dependency stuff. Your work has not been lost - just delayed a little bit. -Adrian --- On Fri, 8/21/09, David E Jones <[hidden email]> wrote: > From: David E Jones <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: Discussion: ExecutionContext > To: [hidden email] > Date: Friday, August 21, 2009, 9:35 PM > > I just reread this, and it sounds pretty harsh, so I > apologize for that. It's great that you are working on > things and putting effort into these improvements, however > they turn out. > > -David > > > On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:13 PM, David E Jones wrote: > > > On Aug 21, 2009, at 9:42 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > > > >> David, > >> > >> I've tried to make things clear. I don't know how > to make it any clearer. I'll try to go over it again.... > >> > >> Yes, I reviewed your branch. I tried to use it, > but I can't - because it won't compile. As proof that I > spent time with it, look at the commit log - I fixed the > build.xml file and added a missing folder. > > > > Yes, it won't compile... but what does that have to do > with anything? It's not _supposed_ to be able to compile > right now as its a work in progress toward a specific goal > for specific reasons as I wrote up before. > > > >> That branch is hopelessly out of date. We can't > expect the community to stop development in the trunk just > because it might interfere with the branch. > > > > It is hopefully out of date only because of the > changes you've made, as I've been pointing out. > > > >> I suggested starting a new branch and bringing > your changes into it a little at a time - always making sure > that it will build and run. You didn't reply. You replied to > another message asking me to create a new branch so that you > can review the work I've done. I created that branch. > > > > I did reply. I reviewed your work and replied with > comments on the direction and problems you would likely run > into... which you did run into. However, that didn't seem to > help adjust the direction of things, so... > > > >> Since then, I have used that branch to build out > the ExecutionContext and security redesign - based on the > work you did in the branch you created. > >> > >> In your branch you created a GenericDelegator > interface. I extracted the GenericDelegator interface in the > trunk. You objected and asked me to revert it. In your > branch you created an EntityListIterator interface. I'm > suggesting we do the same thing in the trunk. Again, you're > objecting to it. > >> > >> I honestly don't see what the problem is here. I'm > doing exactly what you did, only I'm doing it a small step > at a time instead of trying to rewrite the whole framework > in one pass. That's how I work: make a change, test, make > another change, test... > >> > >> I've given up trying to use your branch - not > because you have no say anymore = but because your branch is > unusable. The branch I created builds and runs, it has a > working implementation of the ExecutionContext, it has a > nearly completed security-aware artifact implementation, and > it is synchronized with the trunk. I used your branch as a > guide - the work I've done is compatible with it. > > > > You don't see what the problem is here... and that is > the problem. You gave on trying to understand and use the > work that I did, throwing it away, and at the same time are > running into problems that I already solved there... so... > what to be done? > > > >> You're right - you've been away for a while. In > the meantime, the project marches forward. I'm sorry if that > frustrates you. > > > > Nope, not at all. Please go right on ahead, it is not > my intent to stop you, but rather to hopefully smooth things > out and help. I can't keep an eye everything. As I said > before, if no one else cares about these issues, why should > I? And so the answer is, I guess I don't. I'm going to work > on other things. > > > > -David > > > > > > > >> --- On Fri, 8/21/09, David E Jones <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> > >>> From: David E Jones <[hidden email]> > >>> Subject: Re: Discussion: ExecutionContext > >>> To: [hidden email] > >>> Date: Friday, August 21, 2009, 7:51 PM > >>> > >>> I hope you understand that this is yet another > change that > >>> conflicts with what I put in the branch... > >>> > >>> Again, is it your intention to ignore that > work and move in > >>> a different direction making it difficult (or > impossible > >>> without re-changing various things) to get > that finished and > >>> merged back in? > >>> > >>> I suppose I've been out a lot for the last > couple of weeks > >>> and so I haven't been able to finish this, so > perhaps I have > >>> no say any more... except what I've said > before that you > >>> REALLY need to think through to the end goal > before trying > >>> to make interim steps that may turn out to not > be helpful at > >>> all... and if no one else cares... why should > I? > >>> > >>> -David > >>> > >>> > >>> On Aug 20, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Adrian Crum > wrote: > >>> > >>>> Actually, I just converted > EntityListIterator to an > >>> interface and everything works fine. It ended > up being a > >>> trivial change. > >>>> > >>>> I'll wait for any objections before > committing it. > >>>> > >>>> -Adrian > >>>> > >>>> Adrian Crum wrote: > >>>>> One problem I just ran into while > implementing the > >>> security redesign: > >>>>> EntityListIterator implements > ListIterator, but > >>> code throughout the project references > EntityListIterator (a > >>> concrete class) instead of ListIterator (an > interface). > >>>>> I would like to refactor that so that > the > >>> interface is used instead of the concrete > class. What do you > >>> think? > >>>>> -Adrian > >>>>> Adrian Crum wrote: > >>>>>> --- On Wed, 8/12/09, Adrian Crum > <[hidden email]> > >>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Let's say we're working on the > entity > >>> component. Just > >>>>>>> extract interfaces from the > commonly used > >>> classes, move them > >>>>>>> to framework/api, update > import > >>> statements, compile, test, > >>>>>>> commit. It seems pretty > straightforward to > >>> me. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Crow tastes nasty. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> After trying to implement my > example, I can > >>> see the problems. Wow, that is ugly. One thing > is certain, > >>> we're very good at painting ourselves into > corners. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -Adrian > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > __________________________________________________ > >> Do You Yahoo!? > >> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > >> http://mail.yahoo.com > >> > > > > |
«
Return to OFBiz - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |