about using ofbiz as a platform
Locked
12
12
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
 
|
Hi Jacopo,
I was originally thinking about putting this stuff in the webtools until I thought that user account management may be done by a user that is not a system administrator (e.g. helpdesk level one support). Webtools seems to be more system administration type stuff. What are the pros and cons of using a separate component versus using webtools for this functionality? Many thanks, Chris Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > You are right Christopher. > We will have to migrate (and integrate) the user interface for SecurityGroups and User Login management from the Party to a framework component: this could be a new one, the webtools (I like the idea of having them in the webtools), a new webapp under security etc... > I am sure that Adrian started this effort and put his code in Jira. > > Jacopo > > On Dec 10, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Christopher Snow wrote: > > >> Hi Michael, >> >> The problem with putting in the Party component is that it will throw up >> errors due to dependencies on other components. (Try it and see!) >> >> It is likely that a new component will be required (i.e. developed) for >> a standalone framework that has basic user account management functionality. >> >> What party management functionality would you want to see in the >> standalone framework? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Chris >> >> |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Xu (xudong)
Hi Michael,
Does the framework just need user account and permission management? or, does it need party/organisation management too? Perhaps even using an external framework like ldap would be better for managing the organisational structures, user accounts and permissions? Cheers, Chris Michael Xu (xudong) wrote: > hi Chris, > > Thanks. > > For me, I need user, organization, role, permission functionalities from > party management. But I think you are right that maybe we need a more > elegant party management from framework perspective. Or maybe we even don't > need party in the framework. (Just like JIRA did. JIRA implemented its own > user/permission/role) > > -- > Regards, > Michael Xu (xudong) > www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 0135 > 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096 > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Christopher Snow < > [hidden email]> wrote: > > >> Hi Michael, >> >> The problem with putting in the Party component is that it will throw up >> errors due to dependencies on other components. (Try it and see!) >> >> It is likely that a new component will be required (i.e. developed) for >> a standalone framework that has basic user account management >> functionality. >> >> What party management functionality would you want to see in the >> standalone framework? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Chris >> |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
Administrator
|
Hi Michael, Chris
As Scott said, I also wonder if Adrian did not begin something more open (Atlassian Crowd, etc.). I'd wait his answer because I found only this https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-811 related to specialpurpose/ldap Jacques () ascii ribbon campaign against HTML e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org From: "Christopher Snow" <[hidden email]> > Hi Michael, > > Does the framework just need user account and permission management? or, > does it need party/organisation management too? > > Perhaps even using an external framework like ldap would be better for > managing the organisational structures, user accounts and permissions? > > Cheers, > > Chris > > Michael Xu (xudong) wrote: >> hi Chris, >> >> Thanks. >> >> For me, I need user, organization, role, permission functionalities from >> party management. But I think you are right that maybe we need a more >> elegant party management from framework perspective. Or maybe we even don't >> need party in the framework. (Just like JIRA did. JIRA implemented its own >> user/permission/role) >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Michael Xu (xudong) >> www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 0135 >> 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096 >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Christopher Snow < >> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> The problem with putting in the Party component is that it will throw up >>> errors due to dependencies on other components. (Try it and see!) >>> >>> It is likely that a new component will be required (i.e. developed) for >>> a standalone framework that has basic user account management >>> functionality. >>> >>> What party management functionality would you want to see in the >>> standalone framework? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Chris >>> > |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Snow-3
hi Chris,
I think account and permission management are enough for framework and party/organization probably should not be in the scope of framework. Using LDAP is definitely a good idea. But I think that should be only a option, because not all customers have LDAP. -- Regards, Michael Xu (xudong) On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Christopher Snow < [hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Does the framework just need user account and permission management? or, > does it need party/organisation management too? > > Perhaps even using an external framework like ldap would be better for > managing the organisational structures, user accounts and permissions? > > Cheers, > > Chris > > Michael Xu (xudong) wrote: > > hi Chris, > > > > Thanks. > > > > For me, I need user, organization, role, permission functionalities from > > party management. But I think you are right that maybe we need a more > > elegant party management from framework perspective. Or maybe we even > don't > > need party in the framework. (Just like JIRA did. JIRA implemented its > own > > user/permission/role) > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Michael Xu (xudong) > > www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 > 0135 > > 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096 > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Christopher Snow < > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Michael, > >> > >> The problem with putting in the Party component is that it will throw up > >> errors due to dependencies on other components. (Try it and see!) > >> > >> It is likely that a new component will be required (i.e. developed) for > >> a standalone framework that has basic user account management > >> functionality. > >> > >> What party management functionality would you want to see in the > >> standalone framework? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Chris > >> > |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
hi Chris,
Not sure what kind of help you need for next step. I would love to help if I can. -- Regards, Michael Xu (xudong) www.wizitsoft.com On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Michael Xu (xudong) <[hidden email]>wrote: > hi Chris, > > I think account and permission management are enough for framework and > party/organization probably should not be in the scope of framework. > > Using LDAP is definitely a good idea. But I think that should be only a > option, because not all customers have LDAP. > > -- > Regards, > Michael Xu (xudong) > > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Christopher Snow < > [hidden email]> wrote: > >> Hi Michael, >> >> Does the framework just need user account and permission management? or, >> does it need party/organisation management too? >> >> Perhaps even using an external framework like ldap would be better for >> managing the organisational structures, user accounts and permissions? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Chris >> >> Michael Xu (xudong) wrote: >> > hi Chris, >> > >> > Thanks. >> > >> > For me, I need user, organization, role, permission functionalities from >> > party management. But I think you are right that maybe we need a more >> > elegant party management from framework perspective. Or maybe we even >> don't >> > need party in the framework. (Just like JIRA did. JIRA implemented its >> own >> > user/permission/role) >> > >> > -- >> > Regards, >> > Michael Xu (xudong) >> > www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 >> 0135 >> > 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096 >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Christopher Snow < >> > [hidden email]> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> >> >> The problem with putting in the Party component is that it will throw >> up >> >> errors due to dependencies on other components. (Try it and see!) >> >> >> >> It is likely that a new component will be required (i.e. developed) for >> >> a standalone framework that has basic user account management >> >> functionality. >> >> >> >> What party management functionality would you want to see in the >> >> standalone framework? >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Chris >> >> >> > > |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Snow-3
On Dec 10, 2009, at 9:53 AM, Christopher Snow wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Does the framework just need user account and permission management? or, > does it need party/organisation management too? The framework just needs user/security; parties, persons and organizations cannot be referenced by the framework level components. Jacopo > > Perhaps even using an external framework like ldap would be better for > managing the organisational structures, user accounts and permissions? > > Cheers, > > Chris > > Michael Xu (xudong) wrote: >> hi Chris, >> >> Thanks. >> >> For me, I need user, organization, role, permission functionalities from >> party management. But I think you are right that maybe we need a more >> elegant party management from framework perspective. Or maybe we even don't >> need party in the framework. (Just like JIRA did. JIRA implemented its own >> user/permission/role) >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Michael Xu (xudong) >> www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 0135 >> 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096 >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Christopher Snow < >> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> The problem with putting in the Party component is that it will throw up >>> errors due to dependencies on other components. (Try it and see!) >>> >>> It is likely that a new component will be required (i.e. developed) for >>> a standalone framework that has basic user account management >>> functionality. >>> >>> What party management functionality would you want to see in the >>> standalone framework? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Chris >>> |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Xu (xudong)
Hi Michael,
We need to: - decide whether to create a new component for managing accounts and permissions or use webtools. - decide on what content should go into these screens. As mentioned by Jacopo, some of this may have already been done by Adrian: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1868 Cheers, Chris Michael Xu (xudong) wrote: > hi Chris, > > Not sure what kind of help you need for next step. I would love to help if I > can. > > -- > Regards, > Michael Xu (xudong) > www.wizitsoft.com > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Michael Xu (xudong) > <[hidden email]>wrote: > > >> hi Chris, >> >> I think account and permission management are enough for framework and >> party/organization probably should not be in the scope of framework. >> >> Using LDAP is definitely a good idea. But I think that should be only a >> option, because not all customers have LDAP. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Michael Xu (xudong) |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Snow-3
Hi Christopher,
On Dec 10, 2009, at 9:43 AM, Christopher Snow wrote: > Hi Jacopo, > > I was originally thinking about putting this stuff in the webtools until > I thought that user account management may be done by a user that is not > a system administrator (e.g. helpdesk level one support). Webtools > seems to be more system administration type stuff. > The webtools could provide basic interface for user management for administrators; this doesn't preclude other components from implementing custom and process oriented screens for user management (like the helpdesk component you mention); in fact this is already happening in the ecommerce and party components (and should not change); however helpdesk etc.. will need much more than users and roles; they will probably need persons, parties etc... > What are the pros and cons of using a separate component versus using > webtools for this functionality? > This is not a big deal, we can do both ways. But instead of a new component we should consider adding a new webapp to an existing one (it could be the "security" one). Jacopo > Many thanks, > > Chris > > Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >> You are right Christopher. >> We will have to migrate (and integrate) the user interface for SecurityGroups and User Login management from the Party to a framework component: this could be a new one, the webtools (I like the idea of having them in the webtools), a new webapp under security etc... >> I am sure that Adrian started this effort and put his code in Jira. >> >> Jacopo >> >> On Dec 10, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Christopher Snow wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> The problem with putting in the Party component is that it will throw up >>> errors due to dependencies on other components. (Try it and see!) >>> >>> It is likely that a new component will be required (i.e. developed) for >>> a standalone framework that has basic user account management functionality. >>> >>> What party management functionality would you want to see in the >>> standalone framework? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> > |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
I agree with Jacopo. Basically each ofbiz component can define its own admin
stuff (like user management in security). In terms of how to show those stuff, that should be left to framework users. Maybe some users prefer to aggregate all admin stuff from different components into webtools or MyPortals. Maybe some users prefer to put admin stuff in each component. Just an idea: If webtools is the central place for administration, can we implement it like MyPortal that webtools can automatically load admin stuff from different components? -- Regards, Michael Xu (xudong) www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 0135 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096 On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Jacopo Cappellato < [hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Christopher, > > On Dec 10, 2009, at 9:43 AM, Christopher Snow wrote: > > > Hi Jacopo, > > > > I was originally thinking about putting this stuff in the webtools until > > I thought that user account management may be done by a user that is not > > a system administrator (e.g. helpdesk level one support). Webtools > > seems to be more system administration type stuff. > > > > The webtools could provide basic interface for user management for > administrators; this doesn't preclude other components from implementing > custom and process oriented screens for user management (like the helpdesk > component you mention); in fact this is already happening in the ecommerce > and party components (and should not change); however helpdesk etc.. will > need much more than users and roles; they will probably need persons, > parties etc... > > > > What are the pros and cons of using a separate component versus using > > webtools for this functionality? > > > > This is not a big deal, we can do both ways. But instead of a new component > we should consider adding a new webapp to an existing one (it could be the > "security" one). > > Jacopo > > > Many thanks, > > > > Chris > > > > Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > >> You are right Christopher. > >> We will have to migrate (and integrate) the user interface for > SecurityGroups and User Login management from the Party to a framework > component: this could be a new one, the webtools (I like the idea of having > them in the webtools), a new webapp under security etc... > >> I am sure that Adrian started this effort and put his code in Jira. > >> > >> Jacopo > >> > >> On Dec 10, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Christopher Snow wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Hi Michael, > >>> > >>> The problem with putting in the Party component is that it will throw > up > >>> errors due to dependencies on other components. (Try it and see!) > >>> > >>> It is likely that a new component will be required (i.e. developed) for > >>> a standalone framework that has basic user account management > functionality. > >>> > >>> What party management functionality would you want to see in the > >>> standalone framework? > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Chris > >>> > >>> > > > > |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato-4
The work I did is so old and out of date that it is probably unusable by
now. It might be best to start over. -Adrian Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > You are right Christopher. > We will have to migrate (and integrate) the user interface for SecurityGroups and User Login management from the Party to a framework component: this could be a new one, the webtools (I like the idea of having them in the webtools), a new webapp under security etc... > I am sure that Adrian started this effort and put his code in Jira. > > Jacopo > > On Dec 10, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Christopher Snow wrote: > >> Hi Michael, >> >> The problem with putting in the Party component is that it will throw up >> errors due to dependencies on other components. (Try it and see!) >> >> It is likely that a new component will be required (i.e. developed) for >> a standalone framework that has basic user account management functionality. >> >> What party management functionality would you want to see in the >> standalone framework? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Chris >> >> Michael Xu (xudong) wrote: >>> hi Christopher, >>> >>> That wiki page looks great. Thanks. >>> >>> Do we need to remain Party there as part of framework? >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Michael Xu (xudong) >>> www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 0135 >>> 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096 >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Christopher Snow < >>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I've also started putting a page together on the steps for manually >>>> separating the core framework: >>>> >>>> >>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Ofbiz+as+a+development+framework >>>> >>>> The pages are just my documentation of the steps needed. I still think its >>>> a good idea to have a page for collecting the requirements. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Christopher Snow wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Sounds good to me! >>>>> >>>>> Bruno Busco wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Should we try to write a "framework-only" feature proposal page like >>>>>> the one Scott has writted for "Saved Searches" >>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Saved+Searches >>>>>> collecting all requirements from the mails? >>>>>> >>>>>> Having the path written could help volunteers to contribute in the >>>>>> right direction. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Bruno >>>>>> >>>>>> 2009/12/4 Christopher Snow <[hidden email]>: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> That makes a lot of sense - thanks again Scott! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Scott Gray wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That risk is run by anybody who gets the ball rolling on any new >>>>>>>> proposal, be it a contributor, committer or PMC member. Nobody is >>>>>>>> capable of pushing through substantial change without the approval of >>>>>>>> the community at large. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The key for any amount of work is to collaborate with the community as >>>>>>>> much as possible, if something is large then just break it down and >>>>>>>> discuss each change piece by piece. An approach such as this >>>>>>>> substantially reduces the risk that any work done will be wasted and >>>>>>>> generally improves the overall design. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 4/12/2009, at 7:27 PM, chris snow wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Adrian, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For a change that may be substantial, could this approach be quite >>>>>>>>> risky >>>>>>>>> that a lot of time could be spent developing something that may not be >>>>>>>>> accepted? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Many thanks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Chris >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is not how the open source community works. If anyone wants to >>>>>>>>>> see >>>>>>>>>> this move along, they need to make the desired changes to their local >>>>>>>>>> copy, create a patch, and submit it to Jira. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As far as coordination is concerned, there is an "umbrella" Jira >>>>>>>>>> issue >>>>>>>>>> for this already. Just make new Jira issues sub-tasks of it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Michael Xu (xudong) wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Like Bruno mentioned, this topic has been discussed over many >>>>>>>>>>> times. And >>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>> is time to take some actions. I really think one or more leaders >>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>> lead >>>>>>>>>>> the process. Otherwise, the discussion might be around for a long >>>>>>>>>>> long >>>>>>>>>>> time. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> Michael Xu (xudong) >>>>>>>>>>> www.wizitsoft.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 7:41 PM, chris snow <[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Bruno, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to help. Are you coordinating efforts? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Chris >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bruno Busco wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Michael, >>>>>>>>>>>>> the framework isolation and a framework-only installation is >>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely something the community as talken about many times. You >>>>>>>>>>>>> will find several conversations searching the mailing list. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We will have it sooner or later and any help you could provide on >>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>> topic will be much appreciated. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bruno >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2009/11/24 Michael Xu (xudong) <[hidden email]>: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hmm...I compared the article and the latest code from trunk. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the diagram is consistent with codes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, from the diagram party doesn't depend on marketing; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> however, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I mentioned in previous email, party entity definition does use >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ContactListParty from marketing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Xu (xudong) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (86) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 135 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0135 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Michael Xu (xudong) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just found an article about the dependency: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> < >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> From >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the component relationship diagram, it seems I have to include >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components under framework and application in my new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application. Is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Xu (xudong) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (86) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 135 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 0135 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Michael Xu (xudong) < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I try to build a new application using ofbiz. Basically, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nice overall architect of ofbiz, theme mechanism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Party/Permission/SecurityGroup. However, I found it is very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difficult >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remove unnecessary components. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, entitymodel.xml from applications/party >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uses ContactListParty, which is from marketing component. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency doesn't make much sense, as marketing is only an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> optional >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> component but party is a must. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's the best practice for my case? Advices and clues will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appreciated. Thanks in advance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Xu >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> View this message in context: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://n4.nabble.com/about-using-ofbiz-as-a-platform-tp786778p933001.html >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> View this message in context: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://n4.nabble.com/about-using-ofbiz-as-a-platform-tp786778p948290.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Chris Snow - CEng MBCS CITP MBA (Tech Mgmt) (Open) CISSP >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tel: 01453 890660 >>>>>>> Mob: 07944 880950 >>>>>>> Www: www.snowconsulting.co.uk >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Chris Snow - CEng MBCS CITP MBA (Tech Mgmt) (Open) CISSP >>>> >>>> Tel: 01453 890660 >>>> Mob: 07944 880950 >>>> Www: www.snowconsulting.co.uk >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Chris Snow - CEng MBCS CITP MBA (Tech Mgmt) (Open) CISSP >> >> Tel: 01453 890660 >> Mob: 07944 880950 >> Www: www.snowconsulting.co.uk >> > > |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
Hi Adrian,
Would there be any reason the work couldn't be done on trunk? I was just thinking of the next release (whenever that is) being one step closer to framework separation? Many thanks, Chris Adrian Crum wrote: > The work I did is so old and out of date that it is probably unusable > by now. It might be best to start over. > > -Adrian > > Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >> You are right Christopher. >> We will have to migrate (and integrate) the user interface for >> SecurityGroups and User Login management from the Party to a >> framework component: this could be a new one, the webtools (I like >> the idea of having them in the webtools), a new webapp under security >> etc... >> I am sure that Adrian started this effort and put his code in Jira. >> >> Jacopo >> >> |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
The work would have to be done on the trunk. Releases only get bug fixes.
-Adrian Christopher Snow wrote: > Hi Adrian, > > Would there be any reason the work couldn't be done on trunk? I was > just thinking of the next release (whenever that is) being one step > closer to framework separation? > > Many thanks, > > Chris > > Adrian Crum wrote: >> The work I did is so old and out of date that it is probably unusable >> by now. It might be best to start over. >> >> -Adrian >> >> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>> You are right Christopher. >>> We will have to migrate (and integrate) the user interface for >>> SecurityGroups and User Login management from the Party to a >>> framework component: this could be a new one, the webtools (I like >>> the idea of having them in the webtools), a new webapp under security >>> etc... >>> I am sure that Adrian started this effort and put his code in Jira. >>> >>> Jacopo >>> >>> > |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
I've just tried commenting out all components except commonext on trunk.
I ran the ant tasks create-admin-user-login, then run and then tried to access the url https://localhost:8443/webtools/ I received the following error message: org.ofbiz.widget.screen.ScreenRenderException: Error rendering screen [component://common/widget/CommonScreens.xml#GlobalDecorator]: org.ofbiz.base.util.GeneralException: Error running Groovy script at location [component://commonext/script/changeOrgPartyId.groovy] (Could not find definition for entity name PartyAcctgPrefAndGroup) (Error running Groovy script at location [component://commonext/script/changeOrgPartyId.groovy] (Could not find definition for entity name PartyAcctgPrefAndGroup)) It seems that commonext has a dependency on the party component. Adrian Crum wrote: > The work would have to be done on the trunk. Releases only get bug fixes. > > -Adrian > > Christopher Snow wrote: >> Hi Adrian, >> >> Would there be any reason the work couldn't be done on trunk? I was >> just thinking of the next release (whenever that is) being one step >> closer to framework separation? >> >> Many thanks, >> >> Chris >> >> Adrian Crum wrote: >>> The work I did is so old and out of date that it is probably unusable >>> by now. It might be best to start over. >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>> You are right Christopher. >>>> We will have to migrate (and integrate) the user interface for >>>> SecurityGroups and User Login management from the Party to a >>>> framework component: this could be a new one, the webtools (I like >>>> the idea of having them in the webtools), a new webapp under security >>>> etc... >>>> I am sure that Adrian started this effort and put his code in Jira. >>>> >>>> Jacopo >>>> >>>> >> -- Chris Snow - CEng MBCS CITP MBA (Tech Mgmt) (Open) CISSP Tel: 01453 890660 Mob: 07944 880950 Www: www.snowconsulting.co.uk |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
That looks like a good candidate for a Jira issue.
-Adrian Christopher Snow wrote: > I've just tried commenting out all components except commonext on trunk. > > I ran the ant tasks create-admin-user-login, then run and then tried to > access the url https://localhost:8443/webtools/ > > I received the following error message: > > org.ofbiz.widget.screen.ScreenRenderException: Error rendering > screen [component://common/widget/CommonScreens.xml#GlobalDecorator]: > org.ofbiz.base.util.GeneralException: Error running Groovy script at > location [component://commonext/script/changeOrgPartyId.groovy] (Could > not find definition for entity name PartyAcctgPrefAndGroup) (Error > running Groovy script at location > [component://commonext/script/changeOrgPartyId.groovy] (Could not find > definition for entity name PartyAcctgPrefAndGroup)) > > It seems that commonext has a dependency on the party component. > > > Adrian Crum wrote: >> The work would have to be done on the trunk. Releases only get bug fixes. >> >> -Adrian >> >> Christopher Snow wrote: >>> Hi Adrian, >>> >>> Would there be any reason the work couldn't be done on trunk? I was >>> just thinking of the next release (whenever that is) being one step >>> closer to framework separation? >>> >>> Many thanks, >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> Adrian Crum wrote: >>>> The work I did is so old and out of date that it is probably unusable >>>> by now. It might be best to start over. >>>> >>>> -Adrian >>>> >>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>> You are right Christopher. >>>>> We will have to migrate (and integrate) the user interface for >>>>> SecurityGroups and User Login management from the Party to a >>>>> framework component: this could be a new one, the webtools (I like >>>>> the idea of having them in the webtools), a new webapp under security >>>>> etc... >>>>> I am sure that Adrian started this effort and put his code in Jira. >>>>> >>>>> Jacopo >>>>> >>>>> > > |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
Adrian, thanks for the feedback - jira created OFBIZ-3329.
Adrian Crum wrote: > That looks like a good candidate for a Jira issue. > > -Adrian > > Christopher Snow wrote: >> I've just tried commenting out all components except commonext on trunk. >> >> I ran the ant tasks create-admin-user-login, then run and then tried to >> access the url https://localhost:8443/webtools/ >> >> I received the following error message: >> >> org.ofbiz.widget.screen.ScreenRenderException: Error rendering >> screen [component://common/widget/CommonScreens.xml#GlobalDecorator]: >> org.ofbiz.base.util.GeneralException: Error running Groovy script at >> location [component://commonext/script/changeOrgPartyId.groovy] (Could >> not find definition for entity name PartyAcctgPrefAndGroup) (Error >> running Groovy script at location >> [component://commonext/script/changeOrgPartyId.groovy] (Could not find >> definition for entity name PartyAcctgPrefAndGroup)) >> >> It seems that commonext has a dependency on the party component. >> >> >> Adrian Crum wrote: >>> The work would have to be done on the trunk. Releases only get bug >>> fixes. >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >>> Christopher Snow wrote: >>>> Hi Adrian, >>>> >>>> Would there be any reason the work couldn't be done on trunk? I was >>>> just thinking of the next release (whenever that is) being one step >>>> closer to framework separation? >>>> >>>> Many thanks, >>>> >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>> The work I did is so old and out of date that it is probably unusable >>>>> by now. It might be best to start over. >>>>> >>>>> -Adrian >>>>> >>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>> You are right Christopher. >>>>>> We will have to migrate (and integrate) the user interface for >>>>>> SecurityGroups and User Login management from the Party to a >>>>>> framework component: this could be a new one, the webtools (I like >>>>>> the idea of having them in the webtools), a new webapp under >>>>>> security >>>>>> etc... >>>>>> I am sure that Adrian started this effort and put his code in Jira. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >> -- Chris Snow - CEng MBCS CITP MBA (Tech Mgmt) (Open) CISSP Tel: 01453 890660 Mob: 07944 880950 Www: www.snowconsulting.co.uk |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Snow-3
I have created a page for this:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution The JIRA issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1867 can still be used to group toghether all issues related to this task. Please fill free to add whatever I missed and link the JIRA issues you know are related to this. -Bruno 2009/12/7 Christopher Snow <[hidden email]>: > I've also started putting a page together on the steps for manually > separating the core framework: > > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Ofbiz+as+a+development+framework > > The pages are just my documentation of the steps needed. I still think its > a good idea to have a page for collecting the requirements. > > > Christopher Snow wrote: >> >> Sounds good to me! >> >> Bruno Busco wrote: >>> >>> Should we try to write a "framework-only" feature proposal page like >>> the one Scott has writted for "Saved Searches" >>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Saved+Searches >>> collecting all requirements from the mails? >>> >>> Having the path written could help volunteers to contribute in the >>> right direction. >>> >>> -Bruno >>> >>> 2009/12/4 Christopher Snow <[hidden email]>: >>> >>>> >>>> That makes a lot of sense - thanks again Scott! >>>> >>>> Scott Gray wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> That risk is run by anybody who gets the ball rolling on any new >>>>> proposal, be it a contributor, committer or PMC member. Nobody is >>>>> capable of pushing through substantial change without the approval of >>>>> the community at large. >>>>> >>>>> The key for any amount of work is to collaborate with the community as >>>>> much as possible, if something is large then just break it down and >>>>> discuss each change piece by piece. An approach such as this >>>>> substantially reduces the risk that any work done will be wasted and >>>>> generally improves the overall design. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>> On 4/12/2009, at 7:27 PM, chris snow wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Adrian, >>>>>> >>>>>> For a change that may be substantial, could this approach be quite >>>>>> risky >>>>>> that a lot of time could be spent developing something that may not be >>>>>> accepted? >>>>>> >>>>>> Many thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Chris >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is not how the open source community works. If anyone wants to >>>>>>> see >>>>>>> this move along, they need to make the desired changes to their local >>>>>>> copy, create a patch, and submit it to Jira. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As far as coordination is concerned, there is an "umbrella" Jira >>>>>>> issue >>>>>>> for this already. Just make new Jira issues sub-tasks of it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Michael Xu (xudong) wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Like Bruno mentioned, this topic has been discussed over many >>>>>>>> times. And >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> is time to take some actions. I really think one or more leaders >>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>> lead >>>>>>>> the process. Otherwise, the discussion might be around for a long >>>>>>>> long >>>>>>>> time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Michael Xu (xudong) >>>>>>>> www.wizitsoft.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 7:41 PM, chris snow <[hidden email]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Bruno, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would like to help. Are you coordinating efforts? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Many thanks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Chris >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bruno Busco wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Michael, >>>>>>>>>> the framework isolation and a framework-only installation is >>>>>>>>>> definitely something the community as talken about many times. You >>>>>>>>>> will find several conversations searching the mailing list. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We will have it sooner or later and any help you could provide on >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> topic will be much appreciated. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -Bruno >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2009/11/24 Michael Xu (xudong) <[hidden email]>: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> hmm...I compared the article and the latest code from trunk. I >>>>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>>> the diagram is consistent with codes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For example, from the diagram party doesn't depend on marketing; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> however, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>> I mentioned in previous email, party entity definition does use >>>>>>>>>>> ContactListParty from marketing. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> Michael Xu (xudong) >>>>>>>>>>> www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: >>>>>>>>>>> (86) >>>>>>>>>>> 135 >>>>>>>>>>> 0135 >>>>>>>>>>> 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Michael Xu (xudong) >>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Just found an article about the dependency: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> < >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> From >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the component relationship diagram, it seems I have to include >>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>> components under framework and application in my new >>>>>>>>>>>> application. Is >>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>> correct? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Xu (xudong) >>>>>>>>>>>> www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: >>>>>>>>>>>> (86) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 135 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 0135 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Michael Xu (xudong) < >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I try to build a new application using ofbiz. Basically, I >>>>>>>>>>>>> want to >>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> nice overall architect of ofbiz, theme mechanism and >>>>>>>>>>>>> Party/Permission/SecurityGroup. However, I found it is very >>>>>>>>>>>>> difficult >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> remove unnecessary components. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, entitymodel.xml from applications/party >>>>>>>>>>>>> uses ContactListParty, which is from marketing component. I >>>>>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency doesn't make much sense, as marketing is only an >>>>>>>>>>>>> optional >>>>>>>>>>>>> component but party is a must. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What's the best practice for my case? Advices and clues will >>>>>>>>>>>>> be very >>>>>>>>>>>>> appreciated. Thanks in advance. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Xu >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> View this message in context: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://n4.nabble.com/about-using-ofbiz-as-a-platform-tp786778p933001.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> View this message in context: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://n4.nabble.com/about-using-ofbiz-as-a-platform-tp786778p948290.html >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Chris Snow - CEng MBCS CITP MBA (Tech Mgmt) (Open) CISSP >>>> >>>> Tel: 01453 890660 >>>> Mob: 07944 880950 >>>> Www: www.snowconsulting.co.uk >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> > > > -- > Chris Snow - CEng MBCS CITP MBA (Tech Mgmt) (Open) CISSP > > Tel: 01453 890660 > Mob: 07944 880950 > Www: www.snowconsulting.co.uk > > |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
Administrator
|
Thanks to keep this up to date Bruno
Jacques From: "Bruno Busco" <[hidden email]> >I have created a page for this: > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution > > The JIRA issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1867 can > still be used to group toghether all issues related to this task. > > Please fill free to add whatever I missed and link the JIRA issues you > know are related to this. > > -Bruno > > 2009/12/7 Christopher Snow <[hidden email]>: >> I've also started putting a page together on the steps for manually >> separating the core framework: >> >> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Ofbiz+as+a+development+framework >> >> The pages are just my documentation of the steps needed. I still think its >> a good idea to have a page for collecting the requirements. >> >> >> Christopher Snow wrote: >>> >>> Sounds good to me! >>> >>> Bruno Busco wrote: >>>> >>>> Should we try to write a "framework-only" feature proposal page like >>>> the one Scott has writted for "Saved Searches" >>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Saved+Searches >>>> collecting all requirements from the mails? >>>> >>>> Having the path written could help volunteers to contribute in the >>>> right direction. >>>> >>>> -Bruno >>>> >>>> 2009/12/4 Christopher Snow <[hidden email]>: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> That makes a lot of sense - thanks again Scott! >>>>> >>>>> Scott Gray wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That risk is run by anybody who gets the ball rolling on any new >>>>>> proposal, be it a contributor, committer or PMC member. Nobody is >>>>>> capable of pushing through substantial change without the approval of >>>>>> the community at large. >>>>>> >>>>>> The key for any amount of work is to collaborate with the community as >>>>>> much as possible, if something is large then just break it down and >>>>>> discuss each change piece by piece. An approach such as this >>>>>> substantially reduces the risk that any work done will be wasted and >>>>>> generally improves the overall design. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Scott >>>>>> >>>>>> On 4/12/2009, at 7:27 PM, chris snow wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Adrian, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For a change that may be substantial, could this approach be quite >>>>>>> risky >>>>>>> that a lot of time could be spent developing something that may not be >>>>>>> accepted? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Many thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Chris >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is not how the open source community works. If anyone wants to >>>>>>>> see >>>>>>>> this move along, they need to make the desired changes to their local >>>>>>>> copy, create a patch, and submit it to Jira. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As far as coordination is concerned, there is an "umbrella" Jira >>>>>>>> issue >>>>>>>> for this already. Just make new Jira issues sub-tasks of it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Michael Xu (xudong) wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Like Bruno mentioned, this topic has been discussed over many >>>>>>>>> times. And >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> is time to take some actions. I really think one or more leaders >>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>> lead >>>>>>>>> the process. Otherwise, the discussion might be around for a long >>>>>>>>> long >>>>>>>>> time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Michael Xu (xudong) >>>>>>>>> www.wizitsoft.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 7:41 PM, chris snow <[hidden email]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Bruno, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would like to help. Are you coordinating efforts? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Many thanks, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Chris >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bruno Busco wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Michael, >>>>>>>>>>> the framework isolation and a framework-only installation is >>>>>>>>>>> definitely something the community as talken about many times. You >>>>>>>>>>> will find several conversations searching the mailing list. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We will have it sooner or later and any help you could provide on >>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>> topic will be much appreciated. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -Bruno >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2009/11/24 Michael Xu (xudong) <[hidden email]>: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> hmm...I compared the article and the latest code from trunk. I >>>>>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>>>> the diagram is consistent with codes. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> For example, from the diagram party doesn't depend on marketing; >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> however, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>> I mentioned in previous email, party entity definition does use >>>>>>>>>>>> ContactListParty from marketing. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Xu (xudong) >>>>>>>>>>>> www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: >>>>>>>>>>>> (86) >>>>>>>>>>>> 135 >>>>>>>>>>>> 0135 >>>>>>>>>>>> 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Michael Xu (xudong) >>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Just found an article about the dependency: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> < >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> From >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the component relationship diagram, it seems I have to include >>>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>>> components under framework and application in my new >>>>>>>>>>>>> application. Is >>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>> correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Xu (xudong) >>>>>>>>>>>>> www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: >>>>>>>>>>>>> (86) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 135 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 0135 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Michael Xu (xudong) < >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I try to build a new application using ofbiz. Basically, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nice overall architect of ofbiz, theme mechanism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Party/Permission/SecurityGroup. However, I found it is very >>>>>>>>>>>>>> difficult >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> remove unnecessary components. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, entitymodel.xml from applications/party >>>>>>>>>>>>>> uses ContactListParty, which is from marketing component. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency doesn't make much sense, as marketing is only an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> optional >>>>>>>>>>>>>> component but party is a must. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's the best practice for my case? Advices and clues will >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be very >>>>>>>>>>>>>> appreciated. Thanks in advance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Xu >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> View this message in context: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://n4.nabble.com/about-using-ofbiz-as-a-platform-tp786778p933001.html >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> View this message in context: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://n4.nabble.com/about-using-ofbiz-as-a-platform-tp786778p948290.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Chris Snow - CEng MBCS CITP MBA (Tech Mgmt) (Open) CISSP >>>>> >>>>> Tel: 01453 890660 >>>>> Mob: 07944 880950 >>>>> Www: www.snowconsulting.co.uk >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Chris Snow - CEng MBCS CITP MBA (Tech Mgmt) (Open) CISSP >> >> Tel: 01453 890660 >> Mob: 07944 880950 >> Www: www.snowconsulting.co.uk >> >> > |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Michael Xu (xudong)
Thanks Michael,
I have added this comment for you (it's better to keep things together) http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies?focusedCommentId=9373263#comment-9373263 Jacques From: "Michael Xu (xudong)" <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 2:27 PM Subject: Re: about using ofbiz as a platform > hmm...I compared the article and the latest code from trunk. I don't think > the diagram is consistent with codes. > > For example, from the diagram party doesn't depend on marketing; however, as > I mentioned in previous email, party entity definition does use > ContactListParty from marketing. > > -- > Regards, > Michael Xu (xudong) > www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 0135 > 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096 > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Michael Xu (xudong) > <[hidden email]>wrote: > >> Just found an article about the dependency: >> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies >> >> >> <http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies>From >> the component relationship diagram, it seems I have to include all >> components under framework and application in my new application. Is it >> correct? >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Michael Xu (xudong) >> www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 >> 0135 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096 >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Michael Xu (xudong) < >> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> hi all, >>> >>> I try to build a new application using ofbiz. Basically, I want to use the >>> nice overall architect of ofbiz, theme mechanism and >>> Party/Permission/SecurityGroup. However, I found it is very difficult to >>> remove unnecessary components. >>> >>> For example, entitymodel.xml from applications/party >>> uses ContactListParty, which is from marketing component. I think such >>> dependency doesn't make much sense, as marketing is only an optional >>> component but party is a must. >>> >>> What's the best practice for my case? Advices and clues will be very >>> appreciated. Thanks in advance. >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Michael Xu >>> >>> >>> >> > |
«
Return to OFBiz - User
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |