about using ofbiz as a platform
Locked
12
12
about using ofbiz as a platform
 
|
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 |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
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 > > > |
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 >> >> >> > |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Xu (xudong)
This question feels like it should be a FAQ...
Michael Xu (xudong) 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 > > -- 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 Michael Xu (xudong)
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 >>> >>> >>> >> > |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
hi Bruno,
Thanks for your reply. I wish I could make it by myself. However, it turns out too challenging for me. I think it is more piratical if one or more committer could lead the overall process. At this moment, what I can suggest is that the current big ofbiz might need to be split into sub projects, like framework, ERP, CRM, eCommerce, etc. -- Regards, Michael Xu (xudong) www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 0135 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096 On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Busco <[hidden email]> 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
In reply to this post by Bruno Busco
Hi Bruno,
I would like to help. Are you coordinating efforts? Many thanks, Chris
|
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
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. > |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
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. >> > |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
hi Adrian,
Yes, I agree with you for most issues. However, in my opinion this one seems special, which might cause many fundamental changes. I guess a top-down approach is more practical. -- Regards, Michael Xu (xudong) www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 0135 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096 On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> 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. >>> >>> >> |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
In reply to this post by Adrian Crum
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
|
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
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. |
smime.p7s (4K)
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
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 |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
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. Â 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. Â 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. Â 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 > > |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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 > > |
Re: about using ofbiz as a platform
|
|
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 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 > > 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
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Snow-3
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 > |
«
Return to OFBiz - User
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |