system property not define

[Nicolas Malin-2]

Hello,

During a analyse to find how to force the dataResource location relative ofbiz home instead of absolute system path, I discover a property :

<property-to-field resource="content.properties" property="content.upload.always.local.file" field="forceLocal"/>

On the content.properties, not definition found, it's a quiet configuration and think it's bad way. Each people want to configure OFBiz need to read all code ?

If your are ok I propose to add on https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Contributors+Best+Practices this :
When you define a new property :
1. write a comment on the property file, why this property exist and this default value

## This property permit to learn how it work when...

#my.property = default_value

2. analyse if your property is related to server definition or it's would use different value on different tenant. In this case prefer to use EntityUtilPorperties to resolve the value

remarks ?

[taher]

+1 on documenting purposes

However as far as configuration files are concerned, I find the whole
approach currently used in OFBiz a bit confusing and problematic. There are
too many files scattered in too many places. Some of them are XML and some
are .properties. we should really have one or a few files preferrably in
one directory for all configurations related to framework and core
applications. Or maybe just one master configuration file for framework and
another one for applications and that's it. Also many configurations should
be code and vice versa. All of this makes tweking OFBiz confusing and
difficult.

So my real preference is to shake things up, redesign and centralize
configurations for OFBiz. For example if you think of apache httpd, then
it's really one or two major files isn't it? It should be similar with us I
think.

Taher Alkhateeb

On Monday, 8 August 2016, Nicolas Malin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
> During a analyse to find how to force the dataResource location relative
> ofbiz home instead of absolute system path, I discover a property :
>
> <property-to-field resource="content.properties" property="content.upload.always.local.file" field="forceLocal"/>
>
> On the content.properties, not definition found, it's a quiet
> configuration and think it's bad way. Each people want to configure OFBiz
> need to read all code ?
>
> If your are ok I propose to add on https://cwiki.apache.org/
> confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Contributors+Best+Practices this :
> When you define a new property :
> 1. write a comment on the property file, why this property exist and this
> default value
>
> ## This property permit to learn how it work when...
>
> #my.property = default_value
>
> 2. analyse if your property is related to server definition or it's would
> use different value on different tenant. In this case prefer to use
> EntityUtilPorperties to resolve the value
>
> remarks ?
>
>
> --
> [image: logoNrd] <http://nereide.fr/>
> Nicolas Malin
> The apache way <http://theapacheway.com/> : *Openness* Technical
> decisions are made publicly
> [hidden email]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[hidden email]');>
> 8 rue des Déportés 37000 TOURS, 02 47 50 30 54
> Apache OFBiz <http://ofbiz.apache.org/> |  The Apache Way
> <http://theapacheway.com/> |  ofbiz-fr <http://www.ofbiz-fr.org/> |  réseau
> LE <http://www.libre-entreprise.org/>
>

[Mridul Pathak-4]

The other area that I believe needs be fixed is the use of UtilProperties for both configurations and UI Labels. UI Labels used to be in properties files way back and at that time when migrating to XML format it made sense to keep using the same methods for properties and UI Labels to minimize the effort. I think handling of configurations versus UI Labels can be redesigned to be distinct functionalities.

--
Thanks & Regards,
Mridul Pathak
Senior Manager
HotWax Systems
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com

> On Aug 8, 2016, at 10:56 PM, Taher Alkhateeb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> However as far as configuration files are concerned, I find the whole
> approach currently used in OFBiz a bit confusing and problematic. There are
> too many files scattered in too many places. Some of them are XML and some
> are .properties. we should really have one or a few files preferrably in
> one directory for all configurations related to framework and core
> applications. Or maybe just one master configuration file for framework and
> another one for applications and that's it. Also many configurations should
> be code and vice versa. All of this makes tweking OFBiz confusing and
> difficult.
>
> So my real preference is to shake things up, redesign and centralize
> configurations for OFBiz. For example if you think of apache httpd, then
> it's really one or two major files isn't it? It should be similar with us I
> think.

[taher]

Hi Mridul,

I'm assuming you want to split the methods, not copy-paste into a new file
right? If yes then yeah I think It's a good idea.

Taher Alkhateeb

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Mridul Pathak <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> The other area that I believe needs be fixed is the use of UtilProperties
> for both configurations and UI Labels. UI Labels used to be in properties
> files way back and at that time when migrating to XML format it made sense
> to keep using the same methods for properties and UI Labels to minimize the
> effort. I think handling of configurations versus UI Labels can be
> redesigned to be distinct functionalities.
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
> Mridul Pathak
> Senior Manager
> HotWax Systems
> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com
>
> > On Aug 8, 2016, at 10:56 PM, Taher Alkhateeb <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > However as far as configuration files are concerned, I find the whole
> > approach currently used in OFBiz a bit confusing and problematic. There
> are
> > too many files scattered in too many places. Some of them are XML and
> some
> > are .properties. we should really have one or a few files preferrably in
> > one directory for all configurations related to framework and core
> > applications. Or maybe just one master configuration file for framework
> and
> > another one for applications and that's it. Also many configurations
> should
> > be code and vice versa. All of this makes tweking OFBiz confusing and
> > difficult.
> >
> > So my real preference is to shake things up, redesign and centralize
> > configurations for OFBiz. For example if you think of apache httpd, then
> > it's really one or two major files isn't it? It should be similar with
> us I
> > think.
>
>

[Mridul Pathak-4]

Hi Taher,

Yes, I was talking about splitting those and implement as it’s own method rather than using the common approach for both.

--
Thanks & Regards,
Mridul Pathak
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com

> On Aug 12, 2016, at 7:49 PM, Taher Alkhateeb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Mridul,
>
> I'm assuming you want to split the methods, not copy-paste into a new file right? If yes then yeah I think It's a good idea.
>
> Taher Alkhateeb
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Mridul Pathak <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> The other area that I believe needs be fixed is the use of UtilProperties for both configurations and UI Labels. UI Labels used to be in properties files way back and at that time when migrating to XML format it made sense to keep using the same methods for properties and UI Labels to minimize the effort. I think handling of configurations versus UI Labels can be redesigned to be distinct functionalities.
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
> Mridul Pathak
> Senior Manager
> HotWax Systems
> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/>
>
> > On Aug 8, 2016, at 10:56 PM, Taher Alkhateeb <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> >
> > However as far as configuration files are concerned, I find the whole
> > approach currently used in OFBiz a bit confusing and problematic. There are
> > too many files scattered in too many places. Some of them are XML and some
> > are .properties. we should really have one or a few files preferrably in
> > one directory for all configurations related to framework and core
> > applications. Or maybe just one master configuration file for framework and
> > another one for applications and that's it. Also many configurations should
> > be code and vice versa. All of this makes tweking OFBiz confusing and
> > difficult.
> >
> > So my real preference is to shake things up, redesign and centralize
> > configurations for OFBiz. For example if you think of apache httpd, then
> > it's really one or two major files isn't it? It should be similar with us I
> > think.
>
>

[taher]

+1

On Aug 14, 2016 3:29 PM, "Mridul Pathak" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Taher,
>
> Yes, I was talking about splitting those and implement as it’s own method
> rather than using the common approach for both.
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
> Mridul Pathak
> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com
>
> > On Aug 12, 2016, at 7:49 PM, Taher Alkhateeb <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mridul,
> >
> > I'm assuming you want to split the methods, not copy-paste into a new
> file right? If yes then yeah I think It's a good idea.
> >
> > Taher Alkhateeb
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Mridul Pathak <
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> wrote:
> > The other area that I believe needs be fixed is the use of
> UtilProperties for both configurations and UI Labels. UI Labels used to be
> in properties files way back and at that time when migrating to XML format
> it made sense to keep using the same methods for properties and UI Labels
> to minimize the effort. I think handling of configurations versus UI Labels
> can be redesigned to be distinct functionalities.
> >
> > --
> > Thanks & Regards,
> > Mridul Pathak
> > Senior Manager
> > HotWax Systems
> > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/>
> >
> > > On Aug 8, 2016, at 10:56 PM, Taher Alkhateeb <
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> > >
> > > However as far as configuration files are concerned, I find the whole
> > > approach currently used in OFBiz a bit confusing and problematic.
> There are
> > > too many files scattered in too many places. Some of them are XML and
> some
> > > are .properties. we should really have one or a few files preferrably
> in
> > > one directory for all configurations related to framework and core
> > > applications. Or maybe just one master configuration file for
> framework and
> > > another one for applications and that's it. Also many configurations
> should
> > > be code and vice versa. All of this makes tweking OFBiz confusing and
> > > difficult.
> > >
> > > So my real preference is to shake things up, redesign and centralize
> > > configurations for OFBiz. For example if you think of apache httpd,
> then
> > > it's really one or two major files isn't it? It should be similar with
> us I
> > > think.
> >
> >
>
>