http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/Lookup-target-form-name-tp1579419p1580009.html
In a 1s time I will use the bad way (easier for now). Then I will create the extends+extends-resource mechanims for lookup, will use
Another better way would be to "fix" the lookup in lookup. But I prefer to do that later...
> Hi,
>
> While working on the layered lookups
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3442 (ie replacing all standard/popup lookups by
> layered ones - for the moment only as much as possible since we have an issue with embedded lookups in lookup
>
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3446), I crossed some lookups called from one component to another. And of course some
> introduce bad dependencies (from order to marketing for instance) or at least not repertoried at
>
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies (should workeffort depend on
> ordermngr?) and are protocol dependent (HTTP, like or target-form-name="/ordermgr/control/LookupRequirement" or
> target-form-name="/marketing/control/LookupProductStore"). I also found duplicated request/view-map in controllers (for instance
> for
> LookupWorkeffort) which is better since it avoid both issues above but is also heavier. So I think we should introduce a syntax
> like
> we have for the form extension mechanism: extends+extends-resource. This will not prevent bad depencies issues (which anyway
> depends of the good will, or rather I guess, awareness of the developer) but will at least make lighter the burden of the second
> issue.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Jacques
>
>
>