Why do we still need at least one entitygroup.xml and a reference to it ?

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi,

I had a look, but I have no time anymore, any ideas ?

I would like to get completly rid of... But what was it already ?... I can't remember... Doh...

Thanks

Jacques

[Jacopo Cappellato-3]

Hi Jacques,

we need that one, and in general having the ability to specify a non  
default entity group thru the entitygroup.xml file is something very  
useful and that we need to keep.
So the one in the BI component is really needed and also a good  
example of how entity groups are associated to entities.
I mean that the entitygroup.xml files are not deprecated...

Jacopo

On Jul 15, 2008, at 11:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I had a look, but I have no time anymore, any ideas ?
>
> I would like to get completly rid of... But what was it already ?...  
> I can't remember... Doh...
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques

[Jacques Le Roux]

Jacopo,

I agree for the BI component. But my concern is about the other one, namely org.ofbiz that I had to re-add (I put it in AssetMaint
as a quick fix). Do we need it because it's in specialpurpose ? Or do we need at least one of each existing entity groups ?
From http://fisheye6.atlassian.com/changelog/ofbiz/?cs=672821&@csTruncateDiffs=false (expand all) It thought it was no longer
needed. That's why I removed all ot them (but BI) and found this "anomaly" (if it's one).

Jacques

PS : BTW, please could you email certificate I got issues each time I open one of yours :o)
     L'adresse de messagerie de l'identificateur numérique ne correspond pas à celle de l'expéditeur
     Signataire : [hidden email]
     Expéditeur : [hidden email]
Thanks


From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>

> Hi Jacques,
>
> we need that one, and in general having the ability to specify a non  default entity group thru the entitygroup.xml file is
> something very  useful and that we need to keep.
> So the one in the BI component is really needed and also a good  example of how entity groups are associated to entities.
> I mean that the entitygroup.xml files are not deprecated...
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Jul 15, 2008, at 11:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I had a look, but I have no time anymore, any ideas ?
>>
>> I would like to get completly rid of... But what was it already ?...  I can't remember... Doh...
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Jacques
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>

> Jacopo,
>
> I agree for the BI component. But my concern is about the other one, namely org.ofbiz that I had to re-add (I put it in AssetMaint
> as a quick fix). Do we need it because it's in specialpurpose ? Or do we need at least one of each existing entity groups ?
>>From http://fisheye6.atlassian.com/changelog/ofbiz/?cs=672821&@csTruncateDiffs=false (expand all) It thought it was no longer
> needed. That's why I removed all ot them (but BI) and found this "anomaly" (if it's one).
>
> Jacques
>
> PS : BTW, please could you email certificate I got issues each time I open one of yours :o)

Typo : Should have been : "could you check your email cerificate"

>     L'adresse de messagerie de l'identificateur numérique ne correspond pas à celle de l'expéditeur
>     Signataire : [hidden email]
>     Expéditeur : [hidden email]
> Thanks
>
>
> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>> Hi Jacques,
>>
>> we need that one, and in general having the ability to specify a non  default entity group thru the entitygroup.xml file is
>> something very  useful and that we need to keep.
>> So the one in the BI component is really needed and also a good  example of how entity groups are associated to entities.
>> I mean that the entitygroup.xml files are not deprecated...
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Jul 15, 2008, at 11:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I had a look, but I have no time anymore, any ideas ?
>>>
>>> I would like to get completly rid of... But what was it already ?...  I can't remember... Doh...
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>
>>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-3]

On Jul 15, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Jacopo,
>
> I agree for the BI component. But my concern is about the other one,  
> namely org.ofbiz that I had to re-add (I put it in AssetMaint
> as a quick fix). Do we need it because it's in specialpurpose ? Or  
> do we need at least one of each existing entity groups ?
> From http://fisheye6.atlassian.com/changelog/ofbiz/?cs=672821&@csTruncateDiffs=false 
>  (expand all) It thought it was no longer
> needed. That's why I removed all ot them (but BI) and found this  
> "anomaly" (if it's one).
>

Ah sorry, now I see what you mean. I shouldn't really need that file,  
I agree... I will have a look if I find a free slot.

> Jacques
>
> PS : BTW, please could you email certificate I got issues each time  
> I open one of yours :o)
>    L'adresse de messagerie de l'identificateur numérique ne  
> correspond pas à celle de l'expéditeur
>    Signataire : [hidden email]
>    Expéditeur : [hidden email]
> Thanks
>

I am sorry for this... I will check my certificate again.

Cheers,

Jacopo

>
> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>> Hi Jacques,
>>
>> we need that one, and in general having the ability to specify a  
>> non  default entity group thru the entitygroup.xml file is
>> something very  useful and that we need to keep.
>> So the one in the BI component is really needed and also a good  
>> example of how entity groups are associated to entities.
>> I mean that the entitygroup.xml files are not deprecated...
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Jul 15, 2008, at 11:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I had a look, but I have no time anymore, any ideas ?
>>>
>>> I would like to get completly rid of... But what was it  
>>> already ?...  I can't remember... Doh...
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>
>>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-3]

It is fixed in rev. 676933

Jacopo

On Jul 15, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>> Jacopo,
>>
>> I agree for the BI component. But my concern is about the other  
>> one, namely org.ofbiz that I had to re-add (I put it in AssetMaint
>> as a quick fix). Do we need it because it's in specialpurpose ? Or  
>> do we need at least one of each existing entity groups ?
>>> From http://fisheye6.atlassian.com/changelog/ofbiz/?cs=672821&@csTruncateDiffs=false 
>>>  (expand all) It thought it was no longer
>> needed. That's why I removed all ot them (but BI) and found this  
>> "anomaly" (if it's one).
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> PS : BTW, please could you email certificate I got issues each time  
>> I open one of yours :o)
>
> Typo : Should have been : "could you check your email cerificate"
>
>>    L'adresse de messagerie de l'identificateur numérique ne  
>> correspond pas à celle de l'expéditeur
>>    Signataire : [hidden email]
>>    Expéditeur : [hidden email]
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]>
>>> Hi Jacques,
>>>
>>> we need that one, and in general having the ability to specify a  
>>> non  default entity group thru the entitygroup.xml file is
>>> something very  useful and that we need to keep.
>>> So the one in the BI component is really needed and also a good  
>>> example of how entity groups are associated to entities.
>>> I mean that the entitygroup.xml files are not deprecated...
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Jul 15, 2008, at 11:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I had a look, but I have no time anymore, any ideas ?
>>>>
>>>> I would like to get completly rid of... But what was it  
>>>> already ?...  I can't remember... Doh...
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>