Users - ContentManagementWorker.getAll
Locked
Users - ContentManagementWorker.getAll
 
|
Al, can you tell me if there is a notional 'superroot' of all Content?
Your(?) comments in ContentManagementWorker.getAllPublishPoints suggests maybe there isn't: /** Returns a list of WebSitePublishPoint entities that are children of parentPubPt The name should be "getAllTopLevelPublishPoints" or "getAllChildPublishPoints" @param parentPubPt The parent publish point. */ public static List getAllPublishPoints(GenericDelegator delegator, String parentPubPt) throws GeneralException If there isn't, i wonder if there should be and what your thoughts are on this? CJ _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users |
|
|
Charles,
I am afraid that I have to rethink these things, as I have not worked with them for a while. It is good to have someone take an interest in content management and ask questions. There is not a fixed superroot for Content. I think what I had in mind is that the root for a content tree would be something specific to a webapp and be identified in the web.xml file in the same way that "webSiteId" is. And the actual Content entity would be loaded from a file in the <webapp>/data dir. -Al Charles Johnson wrote: >Al, can you tell me if there is a notional 'superroot' of all Content? >Your(?) comments in ContentManagementWorker.getAllPublishPoints suggests >maybe there isn't: > > > /** > Returns a list of WebSitePublishPoint entities that are children of >parentPubPt > The name should be "getAllTopLevelPublishPoints" or >"getAllChildPublishPoints" > > @param parentPubPt The parent publish point. > */ >public static List getAllPublishPoints(GenericDelegator delegator, >String parentPubPt) throws GeneralException > >If there isn't, i wonder if there should be and what your thoughts are >on this? > >CJ > >_______________________________________________ >Users mailing list >[hidden email] >http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users |
Re: Users - ContentManagementWorker.getAll
|
|
Charles,
If you look in ecommerce/content/content_categories.ftl you'll see... <#assign forumRootId = "WebStoreCONTENT"/> Perhaps this is what you're looking for... -- Kind Regards Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]> Sykes Development Ltd http://www.sykesdevelopment.com _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users |
Re: Users - ContentManagementWorker.getAll
|
|
In reply to this post by byersa
Charles, There isn't and I don't think there should be a "super root" for all content. In fact, I'm not even sure what that would mean. Could you describe how you see such an artifact being used? My guess is that the Content data structures are meant for more things and more general things than you have in mind. For example they are _not_ meant to just be used for web site content or even just ecommerce web site content... -David On Mar 1, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Al Byers wrote: > Charles, > > I am afraid that I have to rethink these things, as I have not worked > with them for a while. It is good to have someone take an interest in > content management and ask questions. > > There is not a fixed superroot for Content. I think what I had in mind > is that the root for a content tree would be something specific to a > webapp and be identified in the web.xml file in the same way that > "webSiteId" is. And the actual Content entity would be loaded from a > file in the <webapp>/data dir. > > -Al > > > Charles Johnson wrote: > >> Al, can you tell me if there is a notional 'superroot' of all >> Content? >> Your(?) comments in ContentManagementWorker.getAllPublishPoints >> suggests >> maybe there isn't: >> >> >> /** >> Returns a list of WebSitePublishPoint entities that are >> children of >> parentPubPt >> The name should be "getAllTopLevelPublishPoints" or >> "getAllChildPublishPoints" >> >> @param parentPubPt The parent publish point. >> */ >> public static List getAllPublishPoints(GenericDelegator delegator, >> String parentPubPt) throws GeneralException >> >> If there isn't, i wonder if there should be and what your thoughts >> are >> on this? >> >> CJ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Users mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users |
smime.p7s (3K)
Re: Users - ContentManagementWorker.getAll
|
|
>>
It is good to have someone take an interest in content management and ask questions. >> You imply, perhaps, that such interest is quite rare. I must say that this surprises me, as i can't think of many sites that are content-free. I've said this to others here before, but i suspect that some might be, for whatever reason, side-stepping content management and 'rolling their own'. >> There isn't and I don't think there should be a "super root" for all content. In fact, I'm not even sure what that would mean. Could you describe how you see such an artifact being used? >> >> I think what I had in mind is that the root for a content tree would be something specific to a webapp and be identified in the web.xml file in the same way that "webSiteId" is. >> Well, 'superroot' was perhaps a bad term i think. To take up Al's point, perhaps each site would have a content root that could be directly queried >> <context-param> <param-name>webSiteId</param-name> <param-value>WebStore</param-value> <description>A unique ID used to look up the WebSite entity to get information about catalogs, etc.</description> </context-param> >> such that 'WebStore' would be a legitimate root for store content. At the moment it appears neither in Content nor ContentAssoc CJ David E. Jones wrote: > > Charles, > > There isn't and I don't think there should be a "super root" for all > content. In fact, I'm not even sure what that would mean. > > Could you describe how you see such an artifact being used? > > My guess is that the Content data structures are meant for more > things and more general things than you have in mind. For example > they are _not_ meant to just be used for web site content or even > just ecommerce web site content... > > -David > > > On Mar 1, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Al Byers wrote: > >> Charles, >> >> I am afraid that I have to rethink these things, as I have not worked >> with them for a while. It is good to have someone take an interest in >> content management and ask questions. >> >> There is not a fixed superroot for Content. I think what I had in mind >> is that the root for a content tree would be something specific to a >> webapp and be identified in the web.xml file in the same way that >> "webSiteId" is. And the actual Content entity would be loaded from a >> file in the <webapp>/data dir. >> >> -Al >> >> >> Charles Johnson wrote: >> >>> Al, can you tell me if there is a notional 'superroot' of all Content? >>> Your(?) comments in ContentManagementWorker.getAllPublishPoints >>> suggests >>> maybe there isn't: >>> >>> >>> /** >>> Returns a list of WebSitePublishPoint entities that are >>> children of >>> parentPubPt >>> The name should be "getAllTopLevelPublishPoints" or >>> "getAllChildPublishPoints" >>> >>> @param parentPubPt The parent publish point. >>> */ >>> public static List getAllPublishPoints(GenericDelegator delegator, >>> String parentPubPt) throws GeneralException >>> >>> If there isn't, i wonder if there should be and what your thoughts are >>> on this? >>> >>> CJ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Users mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Users mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >_______________________________________________ >Users mailing list >[hidden email] >http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users |
|
|
Charles Johnson wrote:
>It is good to have someone take an interest in >content management and ask questions. > > > >You imply, perhaps, that such interest is quite rare. I must say that >this surprises me, as i can't think of many sites that are content-free. >I've said this to others here before, but i suspect that some might be, >for whatever reason, side-stepping content management and 'rolling their >own'. > > Yes, that is probably an accurate observation. And if you are implying that people are rolling their own because CMS is difficult to use, I would have to agree with that, as well. Unless a contract comes along that pays for CMS to be upgraded and enhanced, it will stay at its current level unless the user community steps up and uses it and makes recommendations (which makes me think I should check JIRA, but I would like to see issues in the Dev list). I agree that content management is an important part of most sites and it would be nice to have CMS at the same level as some other OFBiz modules. > > >There isn't and I don't think there should be a "super root" for all >content. In fact, I'm not even sure what that would mean. > >Could you describe how you see such an artifact being used? > > >>> >>> >I think what I had in mind >is that the root for a content tree would be something specific to a >webapp and be identified in the web.xml file in the same way that >"webSiteId" is. > > > >Well, 'superroot' was perhaps a bad term i think. To take up Al's point, >perhaps each site would have a content root that could be directly queried > > > > <context-param> > <param-name>webSiteId</param-name> > <param-value>WebStore</param-value> > <description>A unique ID used to look up the WebSite entity to >get information about catalogs, etc.</description> > </context-param> > > > >such that 'WebStore' would be a legitimate root for store content. At >the moment it appears neither in Content nor ContentAssoc > > the key, but I have come to realize that that is not the "OFBiz way". Better just to add a parameter that represents the key to a "superroot" Content entity that is loaded from a datafile and not try to give double meanings to things. But, then, I am not so sure of that position, either. I am assuming that these would be custom webapps anyway. I suppose we could do something standard for existing webapps - like ecommerce, but since it is already working I don't see a big need to do it. If you want to put specifics of what you are trying to do and where CMS seems to be falling short, I would take a look at them and see what needs to be done. Even if I just explain what is going on, that would be documentation that is not currently there and is not likely to happen soon. -Al >CJ >David E. Jones wrote: > > > >>Charles, >> >>There isn't and I don't think there should be a "super root" for all >>content. In fact, I'm not even sure what that would mean. >> >>Could you describe how you see such an artifact being used? >> >>My guess is that the Content data structures are meant for more >>things and more general things than you have in mind. For example >>they are _not_ meant to just be used for web site content or even >>just ecommerce web site content... >> >>-David >> >> >>On Mar 1, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Al Byers wrote: >> >> >> >>>Charles, >>> >>>I am afraid that I have to rethink these things, as I have not worked >>>with them for a while. It is good to have someone take an interest in >>>content management and ask questions. >>> >>>There is not a fixed superroot for Content. I think what I had in mind >>>is that the root for a content tree would be something specific to a >>>webapp and be identified in the web.xml file in the same way that >>>"webSiteId" is. And the actual Content entity would be loaded from a >>>file in the <webapp>/data dir. >>> >>>-Al >>> >>> >>>Charles Johnson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Al, can you tell me if there is a notional 'superroot' of all Content? >>>>Your(?) comments in ContentManagementWorker.getAllPublishPoints >>>>suggests >>>>maybe there isn't: >>>> >>>> >>>>/** >>>> Returns a list of WebSitePublishPoint entities that are >>>>children of >>>>parentPubPt >>>> The name should be "getAllTopLevelPublishPoints" or >>>>"getAllChildPublishPoints" >>>> >>>> @param parentPubPt The parent publish point. >>>> */ >>>>public static List getAllPublishPoints(GenericDelegator delegator, >>>>String parentPubPt) throws GeneralException >>>> >>>>If there isn't, i wonder if there should be and what your thoughts are >>>>on this? >>>> >>>>CJ >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Users mailing list >>>>[hidden email] >>>>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Users mailing list >>>[hidden email] >>>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>> >>> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Users mailing list >>[hidden email] >>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >Users mailing list >[hidden email] >http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users |
Re: Users - ContentManagementWorker.getAll
|
|
Thanks Al. I'm looking into the CMS at the moment so might well get back
to you at some point. I'm not totally sure what i think at the moment, but i suppose that it all stemmed from it not being as trivial as i thought it should be to say 'get me all publish points for content in my site'. Since i'm new to this however, i may be speaking too soon ;-) CJ Al Byers wrote: >Charles Johnson wrote: > > > >>It is good to have someone take an interest in >>content management and ask questions. >> >> >> >>You imply, perhaps, that such interest is quite rare. I must say that >>this surprises me, as i can't think of many sites that are content-free. >>I've said this to others here before, but i suspect that some might be, >>for whatever reason, side-stepping content management and 'rolling their >>own'. >> >> >> >> >Charles, > >Yes, that is probably an accurate observation. And if you are implying >that people are rolling their own because CMS is difficult to use, I >would have to agree with that, as well. Unless a contract comes along >that pays for CMS to be upgraded and enhanced, it will stay at its >current level unless the user community steps up and uses it and makes >recommendations (which makes me think I should check JIRA, but I would >like to see issues in the Dev list). I agree that content management is >an important part of most sites and it would be nice to have CMS at the >same level as some other OFBiz modules. > > > >> >> >>There isn't and I don't think there should be a "super root" for all >>content. In fact, I'm not even sure what that would mean. >> >>Could you describe how you see such an artifact being used? >> >> >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>I think what I had in mind >>is that the root for a content tree would be something specific to a >>webapp and be identified in the web.xml file in the same way that >>"webSiteId" is. >> >> >> >>Well, 'superroot' was perhaps a bad term i think. To take up Al's point, >>perhaps each site would have a content root that could be directly queried >> >> >> >> <context-param> >> <param-name>webSiteId</param-name> >> <param-value>WebStore</param-value> >> <description>A unique ID used to look up the WebSite entity to >>get information about catalogs, etc.</description> >> </context-param> >> >> >> >>such that 'WebStore' would be a legitimate root for store content. At >>the moment it appears neither in Content nor ContentAssoc >> >> >> >> >I thought about creating a Content record with the webSiteId value as >the key, but I have come to realize that that is not the "OFBiz way". >Better just to add a parameter that represents the key to a "superroot" >Content entity that is loaded from a datafile and not try to give double >meanings to things. But, then, I am not so sure of that position, >either. I am assuming that these would be custom webapps anyway. I >suppose we could do something standard for existing webapps - like >ecommerce, but since it is already working I don't see a big need to do it. > >If you want to put specifics of what you are trying to do and where CMS >seems to be falling short, I would take a look at them and see what >needs to be done. Even if I just explain what is going on, that would be >documentation that is not currently there and is not likely to happen soon. > >-Al > > > >>CJ >>David E. Jones wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>Charles, >>> >>>There isn't and I don't think there should be a "super root" for all >>>content. In fact, I'm not even sure what that would mean. >>> >>>Could you describe how you see such an artifact being used? >>> >>>My guess is that the Content data structures are meant for more >>>things and more general things than you have in mind. For example >>>they are _not_ meant to just be used for web site content or even >>>just ecommerce web site content... >>> >>>-David >>> >>> >>>On Mar 1, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Al Byers wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Charles, >>>> >>>>I am afraid that I have to rethink these things, as I have not worked >>>>with them for a while. It is good to have someone take an interest in >>>>content management and ask questions. >>>> >>>>There is not a fixed superroot for Content. I think what I had in mind >>>>is that the root for a content tree would be something specific to a >>>>webapp and be identified in the web.xml file in the same way that >>>>"webSiteId" is. And the actual Content entity would be loaded from a >>>>file in the <webapp>/data dir. >>>> >>>>-Al >>>> >>>> >>>>Charles Johnson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Al, can you tell me if there is a notional 'superroot' of all Content? >>>>>Your(?) comments in ContentManagementWorker.getAllPublishPoints >>>>>suggests >>>>>maybe there isn't: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>/** >>>>> Returns a list of WebSitePublishPoint entities that are >>>>>children of >>>>>parentPubPt >>>>> The name should be "getAllTopLevelPublishPoints" or >>>>>"getAllChildPublishPoints" >>>>> >>>>> @param parentPubPt The parent publish point. >>>>> */ >>>>>public static List getAllPublishPoints(GenericDelegator delegator, >>>>>String parentPubPt) throws GeneralException >>>>> >>>>>If there isn't, i wonder if there should be and what your thoughts are >>>>>on this? >>>>> >>>>>CJ >>>>> >>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>Users mailing list >>>>>[hidden email] >>>>>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Users mailing list >>>>[hidden email] >>>>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Users mailing list >>>[hidden email] >>>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>Users mailing list >>[hidden email] >>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> >> >> >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >Users mailing list >[hidden email] >http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users |
Re: Users - ContentManagementWorker.getAll
|
|
In reply to this post by byersa
Thanks Al. I'm looking into the CMS at the moment so might well get back
to you at some point. I'm not totally sure what i think at the moment, but i suppose that it all stemmed from it not being as trivial as i thought it should be to say 'get me all publish points for content in my site'. Since i'm new to this however, i may be speaking too soon ;-) CJ Al Byers wrote: >>Charles Johnson wrote: >> >> >> > > >>>>It is good to have someone take an interest in >>>>content management and ask questions. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>You imply, perhaps, that such interest is quite rare. I must say that >>>>this surprises me, as i can't think of many sites that are content-free. >>>>I've said this to others here before, but i suspect that some might be, >>>>for whatever reason, side-stepping content management and 'rolling their >>>>own'. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>Charles, >> >>Yes, that is probably an accurate observation. And if you are implying >>that people are rolling their own because CMS is difficult to use, I >>would have to agree with that, as well. Unless a contract comes along >>that pays for CMS to be upgraded and enhanced, it will stay at its >>current level unless the user community steps up and uses it and makes >>recommendations (which makes me think I should check JIRA, but I would >>like to see issues in the Dev list). I agree that content management is >>an important part of most sites and it would be nice to have CMS at the >>same level as some other OFBiz modules. >> >> >> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>There isn't and I don't think there should be a "super root" for all >>>>content. In fact, I'm not even sure what that would mean. >>>> >>>>Could you describe how you see such an artifact being used? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>I think what I had in mind >>>>is that the root for a content tree would be something specific to a >>>>webapp and be identified in the web.xml file in the same way that >>>>"webSiteId" is. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Well, 'superroot' was perhaps a bad term i think. To take up Al's point, >>>>perhaps each site would have a content root that could be directly queried >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <context-param> >>>> <param-name>webSiteId</param-name> >>>> <param-value>WebStore</param-value> >>>> <description>A unique ID used to look up the WebSite entity to >>>>get information about catalogs, etc.</description> >>>> </context-param> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>such that 'WebStore' would be a legitimate root for store content. At >>>>the moment it appears neither in Content nor ContentAssoc >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>I thought about creating a Content record with the webSiteId value as >>the key, but I have come to realize that that is not the "OFBiz way". >>Better just to add a parameter that represents the key to a "superroot" >>Content entity that is loaded from a datafile and not try to give double >>meanings to things. But, then, I am not so sure of that position, >>either. I am assuming that these would be custom webapps anyway. I >>suppose we could do something standard for existing webapps - like >>ecommerce, but since it is already working I don't see a big need to do it. >> >>If you want to put specifics of what you are trying to do and where CMS >>seems to be falling short, I would take a look at them and see what >>needs to be done. Even if I just explain what is going on, that would be >>documentation that is not currently there and is not likely to happen soon. >> >>-Al >> >> >> > > >>>>CJ >>>>David E. Jones wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>>>>Charles, >>>>>> >>>>>>There isn't and I don't think there should be a "super root" for all >>>>>>content. In fact, I'm not even sure what that would mean. >>>>>> >>>>>>Could you describe how you see such an artifact being used? >>>>>> >>>>>>My guess is that the Content data structures are meant for more >>>>>>things and more general things than you have in mind. For example >>>>>>they are _not_ meant to just be used for web site content or even >>>>>>just ecommerce web site content... >>>>>> >>>>>>-David >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>On Mar 1, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Al Byers wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>Charles, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I am afraid that I have to rethink these things, as I have not worked >>>>>>>>with them for a while. It is good to have someone take an interest in >>>>>>>>content management and ask questions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>There is not a fixed superroot for Content. I think what I had in mind >>>>>>>>is that the root for a content tree would be something specific to a >>>>>>>>webapp and be identified in the web.xml file in the same way that >>>>>>>>"webSiteId" is. And the actual Content entity would be loaded from a >>>>>>>>file in the <webapp>/data dir. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>-Al >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Charles Johnson wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>Al, can you tell me if there is a notional 'superroot' of all Content? >>>>>>>>>>Your(?) comments in ContentManagementWorker.getAllPublishPoints >>>>>>>>>>suggests >>>>>>>>>>maybe there isn't: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>/** >>>>>>>>>> Returns a list of WebSitePublishPoint entities that are >>>>>>>>>>children of >>>>>>>>>>parentPubPt >>>>>>>>>> The name should be "getAllTopLevelPublishPoints" or >>>>>>>>>>"getAllChildPublishPoints" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> @param parentPubPt The parent publish point. >>>>>>>>>> */ >>>>>>>>>>public static List getAllPublishPoints(GenericDelegator delegator, >>>>>>>>>>String parentPubPt) throws GeneralException >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>If there isn't, i wonder if there should be and what your thoughts are >>>>>>>>>>on this? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>CJ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>Users mailing list >>>>>>>>>>[hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>Users mailing list >>>>>>>>[hidden email] >>>>>>>>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>Users mailing list >>>>>>[hidden email] >>>>>>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Users mailing list >>>>[hidden email] >>>>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Users mailing list >>[hidden email] >>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users |
«
Return to OFBiz - User
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |