OFBiz › OFBiz - User

vendors and suppliers

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

35 messages Options

c.schinzer

AW: Re: vendors and suppliers

Hello David,

Actually, such could make it's way to the help documents being provided online.

I am fully with you, that a lot of fuzzy writing is on this (and other) trails. It should be clear to everyone that the common grounds are in the Data Model book.

The second issue is for sure with tranlations, as in DE the same is the case as with NL: Vendor and Supplier are translated to the same term, which obviously makes it very difficult to keep the two concepts separate.

I shall take a look at the german translations an d make sure they will be separated. I recommend the same for any other language translation where the two, vendor and supplier, fall into the same translated term. (Heidi, is that you for NL? Or are you still confused? Let me know and I can assist with the Label files)

As for the first issue I shall review the online help documents and update if necessary.

Kind regards

Carsten

Gesendet mit BlackBerry® Webmail von Telekom Deutschland

-----Original Message-----
From: David E Jones <[hidden email]>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 18:31:29
To: <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: vendors and suppliers

Ruth Hoffman wrote:

> Hi David:
> Nice to hear from you again. Thanks for your input. I have some
> responses. Please see below:
>
> On 12/9/11 4:44 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>
>> Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>> 2) If you look at how vendor/supplier is used in some of the OFBiz
>>> applications, you might observe that:
>>>
>>> A vendor "supplies" goods or services to the Company of record for the
>>> OFBiz instance. Those goods or services may be raw materials for
>>> manufacturing, products for resale on the ecommerce site or computers to
>>> run your business. When a vendor (with a record in the VENDOR table)
>>> supplies you with something, they are acting in a role called a
>>> "SUPPLIER".
>>>
>>> So, in the OFBiz world, my interpretation is: A vendor is a supplier. It
>>> is as simple as that. Anything more is making it too complicated :-)
>>>
>>> Anyone care to comment on my interpretation?
>> Actually a Supplier is a Party the sells things to the company running
>> OFBiz, hence the SupplierProduct entity. In other words, a purchase
>> order is sent to a Supplier.
> A vendor is also a Party that could sell things to the company running
> OFBiz. Just depends on how you set up your accounting system and how you
> name your accounts.
>> The term vendor doesn't mean much in OFBiz, but has been used for any
>> Party that sells something. For example, if you have multiple stores in
>> your OFBiz instance you may have a vendor per store. You could also have
>> multiple vendors selling through a single store.
> Seems to me if the Party sells something and the term vendor is used to
> express that activity, then the term DOES have lots of meaning. OFBiz
> e-commerce, after all, is all about selling products.
>
> That said, there is also an entity named VendorProduct that when coupled
> with the Vendor entity may be used in the same way as the
> SupplierProduct entity. Perhaps I should have said a vendor is a type of
> supplier? Unfortunately (or maybe fortuneately - who is to say?), the
> data model does not enforce this relationship.

Okay, so did you ask to get an answer, or did you ask to start a
discussion? It's not like this is open to interpretation, this was
discussed and decided on a long time ago.

A supplier sells stuff to the company running OFBiz. A vendor sells
stuff to the customers of the company, and a vendor could be an
affiliate or consignment seller sort of thing.

The SupplierProduct and VendorProduct entities are VERY different and
meant to model these 2 totally different things. I'm sorry, but looking
at them again to make sure, I'm not even sure how they could possibly be
confused.

>> They are not really equivalent terms.
> Maybe, maybe not, but I would argue, based on the data model, that they
> ARE equivalent terms when a vendor acts in the role of supplier.
> Regardless, there is really no need to make this more confusing or
> complex than it already is.

There is a clear distinction here. It's not making things complex, it's
two different concepts. It's not one concept, that would be
over-simplifying it. It is two separate, distinct concepts that need
different words, and have them.

Damn, with all the mis-information buzzing around these lists no wonder
people have so many issues with OFBiz. Of course, OFBiz itself is
admittedly complex and often unclear or just plain buggy and
inconsistent, so this is understandable.

I don't know exactly what we can do about all of this, but being more
careful and detailed might be a good start for all of us.

-David

Ruth Hoffman-2

Re: AW: Re: vendors and suppliers

Hi Carsten:
I hope you are not implying that my writing about OFBiz is "fuzzy". I
take great pains to ensure that it is as clear and concise as possible.
Where I am stating an opinion or interpretation I try to make sure that
this is the case from the get-go. (I however am a native English
speaking person and do not know enough about other languages to
communicate effectively in any other tongue.)

Beyond that I agree 100% that the Data Model books are the authoritative
source for the OFBIz Data Model. I use them extensively, even before I
review how a particular business process is implemented in OFBIz. You
will note, if you review my original comments, I site the data model as
the basis for my interpretation.

That said, IMHO, it is not enough to answer a question with "go look at
the Data Model books". The reason I say that is because OFBiz does not
follow the books exactly. And even where it does, language barriers such
as you mention, tend to obscure understanding. Hence, the question that
started this discussion in the first place. The data model is just a
starting point. There is much to OFBiz that is not handled as a direct
result of the relationships defined in the data model or as outlined in
the books.

Finally, and this comment is not directed at you but the community as a
whole: IMHO, if you don't have anything good to say about OFBiz or about
discourse related to understanding OFBiz, then do NOT post your comments
on this forum. It doesn't serve the OFBiz community nor does it help the
cause.

Best Regards,
Ruth

On 12/11/11 9:18 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Hello David,
>
>
> Actually, such could make it's way to the help documents being provided online.
>
> I am fully with you, that a lot of fuzzy writing is on this (and other) trails. It should be clear to everyone that the common grounds are in the Data Model book.
>
> The second issue is for sure with tranlations, as in DE the same is the case as with NL: Vendor and Supplier are translated to the same term, which obviously makes it very difficult to keep the two concepts separate.
>
> I shall take a look at the german translations an d make sure they will be separated. I recommend the same for any other language translation where the two, vendor and supplier, fall into the same translated term. (Heidi, is that you for NL? Or are you still confused? Let me know and I can assist with the Label files)
>
> As for the first issue I shall review the online help documents and update if necessary.
>
> Kind regards
>
>
> Carsten
>
> Gesendet mit BlackBerry® Webmail von Telekom Deutschland
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David E Jones<[hidden email]>
> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 18:31:29
> To:<[hidden email]>
> Reply-To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: vendors and suppliers
>
>
>
> Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>> Hi David:
>> Nice to hear from you again. Thanks for your input. I have some
>> responses. Please see below:
>>
>> On 12/9/11 4:44 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>>> 2) If you look at how vendor/supplier is used in some of the OFBiz
>>>> applications, you might observe that:
>>>>
>>>> A vendor "supplies" goods or services to the Company of record for the
>>>> OFBiz instance. Those goods or services may be raw materials for
>>>> manufacturing, products for resale on the ecommerce site or computers to
>>>> run your business. When a vendor (with a record in the VENDOR table)
>>>> supplies you with something, they are acting in a role called a
>>>> "SUPPLIER".
>>>>
>>>> So, in the OFBiz world, my interpretation is: A vendor is a supplier. It
>>>> is as simple as that. Anything more is making it too complicated :-)
>>>>
>>>> Anyone care to comment on my interpretation?
>>> Actually a Supplier is a Party the sells things to the company running
>>> OFBiz, hence the SupplierProduct entity. In other words, a purchase
>>> order is sent to a Supplier.
>> A vendor is also a Party that could sell things to the company running
>> OFBiz. Just depends on how you set up your accounting system and how you
>> name your accounts.
>>> The term vendor doesn't mean much in OFBiz, but has been used for any
>>> Party that sells something. For example, if you have multiple stores in
>>> your OFBiz instance you may have a vendor per store. You could also have
>>> multiple vendors selling through a single store.
>> Seems to me if the Party sells something and the term vendor is used to
>> express that activity, then the term DOES have lots of meaning. OFBiz
>> e-commerce, after all, is all about selling products.
>>
>> That said, there is also an entity named VendorProduct that when coupled
>> with the Vendor entity may be used in the same way as the
>> SupplierProduct entity. Perhaps I should have said a vendor is a type of
>> supplier? Unfortunately (or maybe fortuneately - who is to say?), the
>> data model does not enforce this relationship.
> Okay, so did you ask to get an answer, or did you ask to start a
> discussion? It's not like this is open to interpretation, this was
> discussed and decided on a long time ago.
>
> A supplier sells stuff to the company running OFBiz. A vendor sells
> stuff to the customers of the company, and a vendor could be an
> affiliate or consignment seller sort of thing.
>
> The SupplierProduct and VendorProduct entities are VERY different and
> meant to model these 2 totally different things. I'm sorry, but looking
> at them again to make sure, I'm not even sure how they could possibly be
> confused.
>
>>> They are not really equivalent terms.
>> Maybe, maybe not, but I would argue, based on the data model, that they
>> ARE equivalent terms when a vendor acts in the role of supplier.
>> Regardless, there is really no need to make this more confusing or
>> complex than it already is.
> There is a clear distinction here. It's not making things complex, it's
> two different concepts. It's not one concept, that would be
> over-simplifying it. It is two separate, distinct concepts that need
> different words, and have them.
>
> Damn, with all the mis-information buzzing around these lists no wonder
> people have so many issues with OFBiz. Of course, OFBiz itself is
> admittedly complex and often unclear or just plain buggy and
> inconsistent, so this is understandable.
>
> I don't know exactly what we can do about all of this, but being more
> careful and detailed might be a good start for all of us.
>
> -David

Matt Warnock

Re: vendors and suppliers

In reply to this post by David E. Jones-2

One of our upcoming needs is to track retail stores across the country
who sell our products. Most of them are not direct customers, they
purchase the products from distributors, who in turn buy from us. We
need to track these retailers and which of our products they carry.

They are not Suppliers (to us), but could be customers. They are a
"Party that sells something" per David's definition, and we need to
track which SKUs they sell. Should they be Vendors, then (which seems
counter-intuitive), or should we create a separate Retailer entity to
track these? Any thoughts?

On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 13:44 -0800, David E Jones wrote:

>
> Ruth Hoffman wrote:
> > 2) If you look at how vendor/supplier is used in some of the OFBiz
> > applications, you might observe that:
> >
> > A vendor "supplies" goods or services to the Company of record for the
> > OFBiz instance. Those goods or services may be raw materials for
> > manufacturing, products for resale on the ecommerce site or computers to
> > run your business. When a vendor (with a record in the VENDOR table)
> > supplies you with something, they are acting in a role called a "SUPPLIER".
> >
> > So, in the OFBiz world, my interpretation is: A vendor is a supplier. It
> > is as simple as that. Anything more is making it too complicated :-)
> >
> > Anyone care to comment on my interpretation?
>
> Actually a Supplier is a Party the sells things to the company running
> OFBiz, hence the SupplierProduct entity. In other words, a purchase
> order is sent to a Supplier.
>
> The term vendor doesn't mean much in OFBiz, but has been used for any
> Party that sells something. For example, if you have multiple stores in
> your OFBiz instance you may have a vendor per store. You could also have
> multiple vendors selling through a single store.
>
> They are not really equivalent terms.
>
> -David

--
Matt Warnock <[hidden email]>
RidgeCrest Herbals, Inc.

David E Jones-5

Re: vendors and suppliers

They would not be suppliers or vendors. A Vendor would be a party
selling stuff through the system. If they are not customers of your
company, then no they wouldn't be customers either.

What you call them depends on how the company interacts with them. When
I do analysis I document each part of a business process in terms of
actor and action because it is often confusing or misleading to leave
one or the other out.

In this case, what are these retail stores doing? How do they interact
with your company? Or, do they not interact with your company and you
just want information so that others can interact with your company (ie
"Customer searches for retail store").

Again based on your short description, so far the more accurate term
seems to be "Retail Store", but how you model that in OFBiz depends on
what the business process looks like (ie it could be a Party, a
Facility, or both... or perhaps something else entirely, or
Party/Facility combined with custom extensions).

-David

Matt Warnock wrote:

> One of our upcoming needs is to track retail stores across the country
> who sell our products. Most of them are not direct customers, they
> purchase the products from distributors, who in turn buy from us. We
> need to track these retailers and which of our products they carry.
>
> They are not Suppliers (to us), but could be customers. They are a
> "Party that sells something" per David's definition, and we need to
> track which SKUs they sell. Should they be Vendors, then (which seems
> counter-intuitive), or should we create a separate Retailer entity to
> track these? Any thoughts?
>
> On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 13:44 -0800, David E Jones wrote:
>> Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>> 2) If you look at how vendor/supplier is used in some of the OFBiz
>>> applications, you might observe that:
>>>
>>> A vendor "supplies" goods or services to the Company of record for the
>>> OFBiz instance. Those goods or services may be raw materials for
>>> manufacturing, products for resale on the ecommerce site or computers to
>>> run your business. When a vendor (with a record in the VENDOR table)
>>> supplies you with something, they are acting in a role called a "SUPPLIER".
>>>
>>> So, in the OFBiz world, my interpretation is: A vendor is a supplier. It
>>> is as simple as that. Anything more is making it too complicated :-)
>>>
>>> Anyone care to comment on my interpretation?
>> Actually a Supplier is a Party the sells things to the company running
>> OFBiz, hence the SupplierProduct entity. In other words, a purchase
>> order is sent to a Supplier.
>>
>> The term vendor doesn't mean much in OFBiz, but has been used for any
>> Party that sells something. For example, if you have multiple stores in
>> your OFBiz instance you may have a vendor per store. You could also have
>> multiple vendors selling through a single store.
>>
>> They are not really equivalent terms.
>>
>> -David
>

David E. Jones-2

Re: AW: Re: vendors and suppliers

In reply to this post by Ruth Hoffman-2

Ruth Hoffman wrote:

> Hi Carsten:
> I hope you are not implying that my writing about OFBiz is "fuzzy". I
> take great pains to ensure that it is as clear and concise as possible.
> Where I am stating an opinion or interpretation I try to make sure that
> this is the case from the get-go. (I however am a native English
> speaking person and do not know enough about other languages to
> communicate effectively in any other tongue.)
>
> Beyond that I agree 100% that the Data Model books are the authoritative
> source for the OFBIz Data Model. I use them extensively, even before I
> review how a particular business process is implemented in OFBIz. You
> will note, if you review my original comments, I site the data model as
> the basis for my interpretation.

Actually no, "The Data Model Resource Book, Revised Edition, Volume 1"
is NOT the authoritative source for the OFBiz data model. It can only be
characterized as a good resource for understanding the general concepts
of the data model of OFBiz, and many of the foundational business
concepts that are represented in OFBiz. It is nothing more than that.

> That said, IMHO, it is not enough to answer a question with "go look at
> the Data Model books". The reason I say that is because OFBiz does not
> follow the books exactly. And even where it does, language barriers such
> as you mention, tend to obscure understanding. Hence, the question that
> started this discussion in the first place. The data model is just a
> starting point. There is much to OFBiz that is not handled as a direct
> result of the relationships defined in the data model or as outlined in
> the books.

That is correct, OFBiz does not follow the books exactly. Most of the
differences people mention to me end up being different interpretations
of what is in the books, as OFBiz is really pretty close. There are also
of course differences in the table design since the books have a
conceptual data model, and OFBiz needs a physical data model (and volume
1 does a good job of describing the difference for those interested).

The best resource to answer these questions is to look at the OFBiz
entity definitions themselves. The general structures and relationships
to other entities can help with their meaning and intended use, and a
lot of them have comments, and in this case even the VendorProduct
entity has a pretty helpful comment to describe how it is meant to be used.

> Finally, and this comment is not directed at you but the community as a
> whole: IMHO, if you don't have anything good to say about OFBiz or about
> discourse related to understanding OFBiz, then do NOT post your comments
> on this forum. It doesn't serve the OFBiz community nor does it help the
> cause.

Sorry, I 100% disagree. Apache OFBiz is not perfect and if all we do is
sit around and pay each other on the back, it won't get any better.

I do agree that anyone who can't handle open discussion of issues or who
things that issues shouldn't be discussed (or who discusses issues
without researching and with no experience) would help the project by
posting less.

-David

> On 12/11/11 9:18 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>> Hello David,
>>
>>
>> Actually, such could make it's way to the help documents being
>> provided online.
>>
>> I am fully with you, that a lot of fuzzy writing is on this (and
>> other) trails. It should be clear to everyone that the common grounds
>> are in the Data Model book.
>>
>> The second issue is for sure with tranlations, as in DE the same is
>> the case as with NL: Vendor and Supplier are translated to the same
>> term, which obviously makes it very difficult to keep the two concepts
>> separate.
>>
>> I shall take a look at the german translations an d make sure they
>> will be separated. I recommend the same for any other language
>> translation where the two, vendor and supplier, fall into the same
>> translated term. (Heidi, is that you for NL? Or are you still
>> confused? Let me know and I can assist with the Label files)
>>
>> As for the first issue I shall review the online help documents and
>> update if necessary.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>>
>> Carsten
>>
>> Gesendet mit BlackBerry® Webmail von Telekom Deutschland
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David E Jones<[hidden email]>
>> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 18:31:29
>> To:<[hidden email]>
>> Reply-To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: vendors and suppliers
>>
>>
>>
>> Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>> Hi David:
>>> Nice to hear from you again. Thanks for your input. I have some
>>> responses. Please see below:
>>>
>>> On 12/9/11 4:44 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>>>> 2) If you look at how vendor/supplier is used in some of the OFBiz
>>>>> applications, you might observe that:
>>>>>
>>>>> A vendor "supplies" goods or services to the Company of record for the
>>>>> OFBiz instance. Those goods or services may be raw materials for
>>>>> manufacturing, products for resale on the ecommerce site or
>>>>> computers to
>>>>> run your business. When a vendor (with a record in the VENDOR table)
>>>>> supplies you with something, they are acting in a role called a
>>>>> "SUPPLIER".
>>>>>
>>>>> So, in the OFBiz world, my interpretation is: A vendor is a
>>>>> supplier. It
>>>>> is as simple as that. Anything more is making it too complicated :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone care to comment on my interpretation?
>>>> Actually a Supplier is a Party the sells things to the company running
>>>> OFBiz, hence the SupplierProduct entity. In other words, a purchase
>>>> order is sent to a Supplier.
>>> A vendor is also a Party that could sell things to the company running
>>> OFBiz. Just depends on how you set up your accounting system and how you
>>> name your accounts.
>>>> The term vendor doesn't mean much in OFBiz, but has been used for any
>>>> Party that sells something. For example, if you have multiple stores in
>>>> your OFBiz instance you may have a vendor per store. You could also
>>>> have
>>>> multiple vendors selling through a single store.
>>> Seems to me if the Party sells something and the term vendor is used to
>>> express that activity, then the term DOES have lots of meaning. OFBiz
>>> e-commerce, after all, is all about selling products.
>>>
>>> That said, there is also an entity named VendorProduct that when coupled
>>> with the Vendor entity may be used in the same way as the
>>> SupplierProduct entity. Perhaps I should have said a vendor is a type of
>>> supplier? Unfortunately (or maybe fortuneately - who is to say?), the
>>> data model does not enforce this relationship.
>> Okay, so did you ask to get an answer, or did you ask to start a
>> discussion? It's not like this is open to interpretation, this was
>> discussed and decided on a long time ago.
>>
>> A supplier sells stuff to the company running OFBiz. A vendor sells
>> stuff to the customers of the company, and a vendor could be an
>> affiliate or consignment seller sort of thing.
>>
>> The SupplierProduct and VendorProduct entities are VERY different and
>> meant to model these 2 totally different things. I'm sorry, but looking
>> at them again to make sure, I'm not even sure how they could possibly be
>> confused.
>>
>>>> They are not really equivalent terms.
>>> Maybe, maybe not, but I would argue, based on the data model, that they
>>> ARE equivalent terms when a vendor acts in the role of supplier.
>>> Regardless, there is really no need to make this more confusing or
>>> complex than it already is.
>> There is a clear distinction here. It's not making things complex, it's
>> two different concepts. It's not one concept, that would be
>> over-simplifying it. It is two separate, distinct concepts that need
>> different words, and have them.
>>
>> Damn, with all the mis-information buzzing around these lists no wonder
>> people have so many issues with OFBiz. Of course, OFBiz itself is
>> admittedly complex and often unclear or just plain buggy and
>> inconsistent, so this is understandable.
>>
>> I don't know exactly what we can do about all of this, but being more
>> careful and detailed might be a good start for all of us.
>>
>> -David

Ruth Hoffman-2

Re: AW: Re: vendors and suppliers

On 12/11/11 2:56 PM, David E Jones wrote:

>
> Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>> Hi Carsten:
>> I hope you are not implying that my writing about OFBiz is "fuzzy". I
>> take great pains to ensure that it is as clear and concise as possible.
>> Where I am stating an opinion or interpretation I try to make sure that
>> this is the case from the get-go. (I however am a native English
>> speaking person and do not know enough about other languages to
>> communicate effectively in any other tongue.)
>>
>> Beyond that I agree 100% that the Data Model books are the authoritative
>> source for the OFBIz Data Model. I use them extensively, even before I
>> review how a particular business process is implemented in OFBIz. You
>> will note, if you review my original comments, I site the data model as
>> the basis for my interpretation.
> Actually no, "The Data Model Resource Book, Revised Edition, Volume 1"
> is NOT the authoritative source for the OFBiz data model. It can only be
> characterized as a good resource for understanding the general concepts
> of the data model of OFBiz, and many of the foundational business
> concepts that are represented in OFBiz. It is nothing more than that.

OK - then I stand corrected and I will now and forever say that: The
Data Model Resource Book, Revised Edition Volume 1 is the closest thing
I've got to an authoritative source as relates to the OFBiz data model.
Since I can't possibly keep it all in my head, I personally, will stick
to these books until something better comes along. It goes without
saying - but I'll say it anyway - that everyone else is welcome to do as
they please. In my case, if anyone asks, I will still defer to these
books, as the documentation that comes with the OFBiz project is not
enough to begin to understand it.

>
>> That said, IMHO, it is not enough to answer a question with "go look at
>> the Data Model books". The reason I say that is because OFBiz does not
>> follow the books exactly. And even where it does, language barriers such
>> as you mention, tend to obscure understanding. Hence, the question that
>> started this discussion in the first place. The data model is just a
>> starting point. There is much to OFBiz that is not handled as a direct
>> result of the relationships defined in the data model or as outlined in
>> the books.
> That is correct, OFBiz does not follow the books exactly. Most of the
> differences people mention to me end up being different interpretations
> of what is in the books, as OFBiz is really pretty close. There are also
> of course differences in the table design since the books have a
> conceptual data model, and OFBiz needs a physical data model (and volume
> 1 does a good job of describing the difference for those interested).
>
> The best resource to answer these questions is to look at the OFBiz
> entity definitions themselves. The general structures and relationships
> to other entities can help with their meaning and intended use, and a
> lot of them have comments, and in this case even the VendorProduct
> entity has a pretty helpful comment to describe how it is meant to be used.

Oh were it true...then we would not be having this discussion. May I
make a suggestion? Instead of continuing to say go look at the entity
definitions "themselves", why not offer to do something positive and
help with the OFBiz learning experience. I'm thinking something like
building a few process diagrams that show graphically what you have been
trying to articulate here. Shouldn't take you too long to knock a few of
them out. Right? Consider it a challenge from someone who has been
trying to understand this stuff by reading the code and looking at the
entity definitions and in some cases building process diagrams, for
several years now and then attempting to explain it to others.
>> Finally, and this comment is not directed at you but the community as a
>> whole: IMHO, if you don't have anything good to say about OFBiz or about
>> discourse related to understanding OFBiz, then do NOT post your comments
>> on this forum. It doesn't serve the OFBiz community nor does it help the
>> cause.
> Sorry, I 100% disagree. Apache OFBiz is not perfect and if all we do is
> sit around and pay each other on the back, it won't get any better.
Sure its not perfect. But neither am I. That doesn't stop me from
encouraging others to use it. It certainly doesn't stop me from helping
other people to understand it. I've been around this industry for longer
than you have and based on my experiences, I will continue to say with a
great deal of conviction, that OFBiz has no rivals when all things are
considered. Until I see something better, I'm committed to making OFBiz
the best it can be.
> I do agree that anyone who can't handle open discussion of issues or who
> things that issues shouldn't be discussed (or who discusses issues
> without researching and with no experience) would help the project by
That is not what I said. But if you want to openly debate (or argue)
about something with me, OFBiz or otherwise, please just come out and
say it. I'm not afraid to discuss things with you. I have lots to learn
about OFBiz. I learn new things about it every day. So please, save me
the trouble of digging through the code and enlighten me today! How
about starting with updating the aforementioned glossary?

Just a thought.

Regards
Ruth

> posting less.
>
> -David
>
>
>> On 12/11/11 9:18 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>> Hello David,
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, such could make it's way to the help documents being
>>> provided online.
>>>
>>> I am fully with you, that a lot of fuzzy writing is on this (and
>>> other) trails. It should be clear to everyone that the common grounds
>>> are in the Data Model book.
>>>
>>> The second issue is for sure with tranlations, as in DE the same is
>>> the case as with NL: Vendor and Supplier are translated to the same
>>> term, which obviously makes it very difficult to keep the two concepts
>>> separate.
>>>
>>> I shall take a look at the german translations an d make sure they
>>> will be separated. I recommend the same for any other language
>>> translation where the two, vendor and supplier, fall into the same
>>> translated term. (Heidi, is that you for NL? Or are you still
>>> confused? Let me know and I can assist with the Label files)
>>>
>>> As for the first issue I shall review the online help documents and
>>> update if necessary.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>>
>>> Carsten
>>>
>>> Gesendet mit BlackBerry® Webmail von Telekom Deutschland
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: David E Jones<[hidden email]>
>>> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 18:31:29
>>> To:<[hidden email]>
>>> Reply-To: [hidden email]
>>> Subject: Re: vendors and suppliers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>>> Hi David:
>>>> Nice to hear from you again. Thanks for your input. I have some
>>>> responses. Please see below:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/9/11 4:44 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>>>>> 2) If you look at how vendor/supplier is used in some of the OFBiz
>>>>>> applications, you might observe that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A vendor "supplies" goods or services to the Company of record for the
>>>>>> OFBiz instance. Those goods or services may be raw materials for
>>>>>> manufacturing, products for resale on the ecommerce site or
>>>>>> computers to
>>>>>> run your business. When a vendor (with a record in the VENDOR table)
>>>>>> supplies you with something, they are acting in a role called a
>>>>>> "SUPPLIER".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, in the OFBiz world, my interpretation is: A vendor is a
>>>>>> supplier. It
>>>>>> is as simple as that. Anything more is making it too complicated :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone care to comment on my interpretation?
>>>>> Actually a Supplier is a Party the sells things to the company running
>>>>> OFBiz, hence the SupplierProduct entity. In other words, a purchase
>>>>> order is sent to a Supplier.
>>>> A vendor is also a Party that could sell things to the company running
>>>> OFBiz. Just depends on how you set up your accounting system and how you
>>>> name your accounts.
>>>>> The term vendor doesn't mean much in OFBiz, but has been used for any
>>>>> Party that sells something. For example, if you have multiple stores in
>>>>> your OFBiz instance you may have a vendor per store. You could also
>>>>> have
>>>>> multiple vendors selling through a single store.
>>>> Seems to me if the Party sells something and the term vendor is used to
>>>> express that activity, then the term DOES have lots of meaning. OFBiz
>>>> e-commerce, after all, is all about selling products.
>>>>
>>>> That said, there is also an entity named VendorProduct that when coupled
>>>> with the Vendor entity may be used in the same way as the
>>>> SupplierProduct entity. Perhaps I should have said a vendor is a type of
>>>> supplier? Unfortunately (or maybe fortuneately - who is to say?), the
>>>> data model does not enforce this relationship.
>>> Okay, so did you ask to get an answer, or did you ask to start a
>>> discussion? It's not like this is open to interpretation, this was
>>> discussed and decided on a long time ago.
>>>
>>> A supplier sells stuff to the company running OFBiz. A vendor sells
>>> stuff to the customers of the company, and a vendor could be an
>>> affiliate or consignment seller sort of thing.
>>>
>>> The SupplierProduct and VendorProduct entities are VERY different and
>>> meant to model these 2 totally different things. I'm sorry, but looking
>>> at them again to make sure, I'm not even sure how they could possibly be
>>> confused.
>>>
>>>>> They are not really equivalent terms.
>>>> Maybe, maybe not, but I would argue, based on the data model, that they
>>>> ARE equivalent terms when a vendor acts in the role of supplier.
>>>> Regardless, there is really no need to make this more confusing or
>>>> complex than it already is.
>>> There is a clear distinction here. It's not making things complex, it's
>>> two different concepts. It's not one concept, that would be
>>> over-simplifying it. It is two separate, distinct concepts that need
>>> different words, and have them.
>>>
>>> Damn, with all the mis-information buzzing around these lists no wonder
>>> people have so many issues with OFBiz. Of course, OFBiz itself is
>>> admittedly complex and often unclear or just plain buggy and
>>> inconsistent, so this is understandable.
>>>
>>> I don't know exactly what we can do about all of this, but being more
>>> careful and detailed might be a good start for all of us.
>>>
>>> -David

c.schinzer

Re: AW: Re: vendors and suppliers

All,

in order to work this up for the German locale, I have opened:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4622

and commented here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Dictionary+for+translations+to+German

Please assess my suggestions. I shall be committing those labels on the
"de_DE" locale first (which is free to be used in parallel to the "de"
locale).
Christian, if you follow this, kindly assess my suggestions and take over
for the default "de" locale labels whatever you may find making sense.

Kind regards

Carsten

PS: [Ruth, I owe you this:] Actually I did not mean you personally
commenting fuzzily. It is just a fact that many comments on this list are
from the top of people's mind and how they use OFBiz (especailly when it
comes to questions regarding the domain data model, not necessarily
technicalities). You are actually an outstanding exception to the rule !!

2011/12/11 Ruth Hoffman <[hidden email]>

> On 12/11/11 2:56 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Carsten:
>>> I hope you are not implying that my writing about OFBiz is "fuzzy". I
>>> take great pains to ensure that it is as clear and concise as possible.
>>> Where I am stating an opinion or interpretation I try to make sure that
>>> this is the case from the get-go. (I however am a native English
>>> speaking person and do not know enough about other languages to
>>> communicate effectively in any other tongue.)
>>>
>>> Beyond that I agree 100% that the Data Model books are the authoritative
>>> source for the OFBIz Data Model. I use them extensively, even before I
>>> review how a particular business process is implemented in OFBIz. You
>>> will note, if you review my original comments, I site the data model as
>>> the basis for my interpretation.
>>>
>> Actually no, "The Data Model Resource Book, Revised Edition, Volume 1"
>> is NOT the authoritative source for the OFBiz data model. It can only be
>> characterized as a good resource for understanding the general concepts
>> of the data model of OFBiz, and many of the foundational business
>> concepts that are represented in OFBiz. It is nothing more than that.
>>
> OK - then I stand corrected and I will now and forever say that: The Data
> Model Resource Book, Revised Edition Volume 1 is the closest thing I've got
> to an authoritative source as relates to the OFBiz data model. Since I
> can't possibly keep it all in my head, I personally, will stick to these
> books until something better comes along. It goes without saying - but I'll
> say it anyway - that everyone else is welcome to do as they please. In my
> case, if anyone asks, I will still defer to these books, as the
> documentation that comes with the OFBiz project is not enough to begin to
> understand it.
>
>
>> That said, IMHO, it is not enough to answer a question with "go look at
>>> the Data Model books". The reason I say that is because OFBiz does not
>>> follow the books exactly. And even where it does, language barriers such
>>> as you mention, tend to obscure understanding. Hence, the question that
>>> started this discussion in the first place. The data model is just a
>>> starting point. There is much to OFBiz that is not handled as a direct
>>> result of the relationships defined in the data model or as outlined in
>>> the books.
>>>
>> That is correct, OFBiz does not follow the books exactly. Most of the
>> differences people mention to me end up being different interpretations
>> of what is in the books, as OFBiz is really pretty close. There are also
>> of course differences in the table design since the books have a
>> conceptual data model, and OFBiz needs a physical data model (and volume
>> 1 does a good job of describing the difference for those interested).
>>
>> The best resource to answer these questions is to look at the OFBiz
>> entity definitions themselves. The general structures and relationships
>> to other entities can help with their meaning and intended use, and a
>> lot of them have comments, and in this case even the VendorProduct
>> entity has a pretty helpful comment to describe how it is meant to be
>> used.
>>
> Oh were it true...then we would not be having this discussion. May I make
> a suggestion? Instead of continuing to say go look at the entity
> definitions "themselves", why not offer to do something positive and help
> with the OFBiz learning experience. I'm thinking something like building a
> few process diagrams that show graphically what you have been trying to
> articulate here. Shouldn't take you too long to knock a few of them out.
> Right? Consider it a challenge from someone who has been trying to
> understand this stuff by reading the code and looking at the entity
> definitions and in some cases building process diagrams, for several years
> now and then attempting to explain it to others.
>
> Finally, and this comment is not directed at you but the community as a
>>> whole: IMHO, if you don't have anything good to say about OFBiz or about
>>> discourse related to understanding OFBiz, then do NOT post your comments
>>> on this forum. It doesn't serve the OFBiz community nor does it help the
>>> cause.
>>>
>> Sorry, I 100% disagree. Apache OFBiz is not perfect and if all we do is
>> sit around and pay each other on the back, it won't get any better.
>>
> Sure its not perfect. But neither am I. That doesn't stop me from
> encouraging others to use it. It certainly doesn't stop me from helping
> other people to understand it. I've been around this industry for longer
> than you have and based on my experiences, I will continue to say with a
> great deal of conviction, that OFBiz has no rivals when all things are
> considered. Until I see something better, I'm committed to making OFBiz the
> best it can be.
>
> I do agree that anyone who can't handle open discussion of issues or who
>> things that issues shouldn't be discussed (or who discusses issues
>> without researching and with no experience) would help the project by
>>
> That is not what I said. But if you want to openly debate (or argue) about
> something with me, OFBiz or otherwise, please just come out and say it. I'm
> not afraid to discuss things with you. I have lots to learn about OFBiz. I
> learn new things about it every day. So please, save me the trouble of
> digging through the code and enlighten me today! How about starting with
> updating the aforementioned glossary?
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Regards
> Ruth
>
> posting less.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On 12/11/11 9:18 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello David,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, such could make it's way to the help documents being
>>>> provided online.
>>>>
>>>> I am fully with you, that a lot of fuzzy writing is on this (and
>>>> other) trails. It should be clear to everyone that the common grounds
>>>> are in the Data Model book.
>>>>
>>>> The second issue is for sure with tranlations, as in DE the same is
>>>> the case as with NL: Vendor and Supplier are translated to the same
>>>> term, which obviously makes it very difficult to keep the two concepts
>>>> separate.
>>>>
>>>> I shall take a look at the german translations an d make sure they
>>>> will be separated. I recommend the same for any other language
>>>> translation where the two, vendor and supplier, fall into the same
>>>> translated term. (Heidi, is that you for NL? Or are you still
>>>> confused? Let me know and I can assist with the Label files)
>>>>
>>>> As for the first issue I shall review the online help documents and
>>>> update if necessary.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Carsten
>>>>
>>>> Gesendet mit BlackBerryŽ Webmail von Telekom Deutschland
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: David E Jones<[hidden email]>
>>>> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 18:31:29
>>>> To:<[hidden email]>
>>>> Reply-To: [hidden email]
>>>> Subject: Re: vendors and suppliers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi David:
>>>>> Nice to hear from you again. Thanks for your input. I have some
>>>>> responses. Please see below:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/9/11 4:44 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) If you look at how vendor/supplier is used in some of the OFBiz
>>>>>>> applications, you might observe that:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A vendor "supplies" goods or services to the Company of record for
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> OFBiz instance. Those goods or services may be raw materials for
>>>>>>> manufacturing, products for resale on the ecommerce site or
>>>>>>> computers to
>>>>>>> run your business. When a vendor (with a record in the VENDOR table)
>>>>>>> supplies you with something, they are acting in a role called a
>>>>>>> "SUPPLIER".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, in the OFBiz world, my interpretation is: A vendor is a
>>>>>>> supplier. It
>>>>>>> is as simple as that. Anything more is making it too complicated :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone care to comment on my interpretation?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually a Supplier is a Party the sells things to the company running
>>>>>> OFBiz, hence the SupplierProduct entity. In other words, a purchase
>>>>>> order is sent to a Supplier.
>>>>>>
>>>>> A vendor is also a Party that could sell things to the company running
>>>>> OFBiz. Just depends on how you set up your accounting system and how
>>>>> you
>>>>> name your accounts.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The term vendor doesn't mean much in OFBiz, but has been used for any
>>>>>> Party that sells something. For example, if you have multiple stores
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> your OFBiz instance you may have a vendor per store. You could also
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> multiple vendors selling through a single store.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Seems to me if the Party sells something and the term vendor is used to
>>>>> express that activity, then the term DOES have lots of meaning. OFBiz
>>>>> e-commerce, after all, is all about selling products.
>>>>>
>>>>> That said, there is also an entity named VendorProduct that when
>>>>> coupled
>>>>> with the Vendor entity may be used in the same way as the
>>>>> SupplierProduct entity. Perhaps I should have said a vendor is a type
>>>>> of
>>>>> supplier? Unfortunately (or maybe fortuneately - who is to say?), the
>>>>> data model does not enforce this relationship.
>>>>>
>>>> Okay, so did you ask to get an answer, or did you ask to start a
>>>> discussion? It's not like this is open to interpretation, this was
>>>> discussed and decided on a long time ago.
>>>>
>>>> A supplier sells stuff to the company running OFBiz. A vendor sells
>>>> stuff to the customers of the company, and a vendor could be an
>>>> affiliate or consignment seller sort of thing.
>>>>
>>>> The SupplierProduct and VendorProduct entities are VERY different and
>>>> meant to model these 2 totally different things. I'm sorry, but looking
>>>> at them again to make sure, I'm not even sure how they could possibly be
>>>> confused.
>>>>
>>>> They are not really equivalent terms.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe, maybe not, but I would argue, based on the data model, that they
>>>>> ARE equivalent terms when a vendor acts in the role of supplier.
>>>>> Regardless, there is really no need to make this more confusing or
>>>>> complex than it already is.
>>>>>
>>>> There is a clear distinction here. It's not making things complex, it's
>>>> two different concepts. It's not one concept, that would be
>>>> over-simplifying it. It is two separate, distinct concepts that need
>>>> different words, and have them.
>>>>
>>>> Damn, with all the mis-information buzzing around these lists no wonder
>>>> people have so many issues with OFBiz. Of course, OFBiz itself is
>>>> admittedly complex and often unclear or just plain buggy and
>>>> inconsistent, so this is understandable.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know exactly what we can do about all of this, but being more
>>>> careful and detailed might be a good start for all of us.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>

--

Best

Carsten Schinzer

Plankstettenstr. 7
80638 München
Germany

Saroj C

Removing /controller from URI

Hi,
For all the pages the url is OFBiz looks something like
http://mydomain/context/controller/uri

Is it anyway possible to remove the /controller from all the URI ?

Thanks and Regards,
Saroj
=====-----=====-----=====
Notice: The information contained in this e-mail
message and/or attachments to it may contain
confidential or privileged information. If you are
not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use,
review, distribution, printing or copying of the
information contained in this e-mail message
and/or attachments to it are strictly prohibited. If
you have received this communication in error,
please notify us by reply e-mail or telephone and
immediately and permanently delete the message
and any attachments. Thank you

hans_bakker

Re: Removing /controller from URI

Hi Saroy,

You can checkout the SEO friendly url's in the trunk version for
products, categories and content we implemented some time ago.

A site which is using that is http://ofbiz.info which is running from OFBiz.

example url's:
http://www.ofbiz.info/OFBiz-s-Tax-Authority-Data-Model-explanations-94295-content
http://www.ofbiz.info/OFBiz-General-OfbizInfoGeneral-c

Regards,
Hans

On 12/12/2011 09:09 PM, Saroj C wrote:

> Hi,
> For all the pages the url is OFBiz looks something like
> http://mydomain/context/controller/uri
>
> Is it anyway possible to remove the /controller from all the URI ?
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Saroj
> =====-----=====-----=====
> Notice: The information contained in this e-mail
> message and/or attachments to it may contain
> confidential or privileged information. If you are
> not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use,
> review, distribution, printing or copying of the
> information contained in this e-mail message
> and/or attachments to it are strictly prohibited. If
> you have received this communication in error,
> please notify us by reply e-mail or telephone and
> immediately and permanently delete the message
> and any attachments. Thank you
>
>
>

Wai

Re: vendors and suppliers

In reply to this post by BJ Freeman

Hello All,

Just to add a little more confusion.

Given the owner of "the organization" that is running ofbiz. This organization is organized into self contained business units. Each business unit was created to develop/market/sell a certain product line.

1. All outside companies that sell to "the organization" or any of its business units are considered suppliers in ofbiz.
2. "The organization" and any of its business units that sell to outside companies are called vendors in ofbiz.

How would the owner of "the organization" classify business units that sell/buy from each other? Are they considered supplier or vendor or both. Ie. do these business units have entries in both VendorProduct and SupplierProduct? Or do the owner just use "roles" to distinguish them?

TIA,
Wai

Saroj C

Re: Removing /controller from URI

In reply to this post by hans_bakker

Thanks Hans.

Saroj Kumar Choudhury
Tata Consultancy Services
Mailto: [hidden email]
Website: http://www.tcs.com
____________________________________________
Experience certainty. IT Services
Business Solutions
Outsourcing
____________________________________________

From:
Hans Bakker <[hidden email]>
To:
[hidden email]
Cc:
Saroj C <[hidden email]>
Date:
12/12/2011 08:09 PM
Subject:
Re: Removing /controller from URI

Hi Saroy,

You can checkout the SEO friendly url's in the trunk version for
products, categories and content we implemented some time ago.

A site which is using that is http://ofbiz.info which is running from
OFBiz.

example url's:
http://www.ofbiz.info/OFBiz-s-Tax-Authority-Data-Model-explanations-94295-content

http://www.ofbiz.info/OFBiz-General-OfbizInfoGeneral-c

Regards,
Hans

On 12/12/2011 09:09 PM, Saroj C wrote:

Ruth Hoffman-2

Re: Removing /controller from URI

In reply to this post by hans_bakker

Hello All:
Are there any other suggestions?

In the past I have used an Apache web server to map URLs and effectively
remove "control" from the path.

I have also, in one case implemented something similar to Han's
suggestion. This however required changes to the ControlServlet. I'm
wondering if there aren't other alternatives?

David? Other commiters? Any suggestions?

Thanks much.
Ruth

On 12/12/11 9:38 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> Hi Saroy,
>
> You can checkout the SEO friendly url's in the trunk version for
> products, categories and content we implemented some time ago.
>
> A site which is using that is http://ofbiz.info which is running from
> OFBiz.
>
> example url's:
> http://www.ofbiz.info/OFBiz-s-Tax-Authority-Data-Model-explanations-94295-content
>
> http://www.ofbiz.info/OFBiz-General-OfbizInfoGeneral-c
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
> On 12/12/2011 09:09 PM, Saroj C wrote:
>> Hi,
>> For all the pages the url is OFBiz looks something like
>> http://mydomain/context/controller/uri
>>
>> Is it anyway possible to remove the /controller from all the URI ?
>>
>> Thanks and Regards,
>> Saroj
>> =====-----=====-----=====
>> Notice: The information contained in this e-mail
>> message and/or attachments to it may contain
>> confidential or privileged information. If you are
>> not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use,
>> review, distribution, printing or copying of the
>> information contained in this e-mail message
>> and/or attachments to it are strictly prohibited. If
>> you have received this communication in error,
>> please notify us by reply e-mail or telephone and
>> immediately and permanently delete the message
>> and any attachments. Thank you
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Jacques Le Roux

Re: Removing /controller from URI

Administrator

Hi Ruth,

You may use http://www.tuckey.org/ (I already posted about that some years ago) simple and effective; just a new thing to learn ;o)

Jacques

From: "Ruth Hoffman" <[hidden email]>

> Hello All:
> Are there any other suggestions?
>
> In the past I have used an Apache web server to map URLs and effectively
> remove "control" from the path.
>
> I have also, in one case implemented something similar to Han's
> suggestion. This however required changes to the ControlServlet. I'm
> wondering if there aren't other alternatives?
>
> David? Other commiters? Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks much.
> Ruth
>
> On 12/12/11 9:38 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>> Hi Saroy,
>>
>> You can checkout the SEO friendly url's in the trunk version for
>> products, categories and content we implemented some time ago.
>>
>> A site which is using that is http://ofbiz.info which is running from
>> OFBiz.
>>
>> example url's:
>> http://www.ofbiz.info/OFBiz-s-Tax-Authority-Data-Model-explanations-94295-content
>>
>> http://www.ofbiz.info/OFBiz-General-OfbizInfoGeneral-c
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hans
>>
>> On 12/12/2011 09:09 PM, Saroj C wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> For all the pages the url is OFBiz looks something like
>>> http://mydomain/context/controller/uri
>>>
>>> Is it anyway possible to remove the /controller from all the URI ?
>>>
>>> Thanks and Regards,
>>> Saroj
>>> =====-----=====-----=====
>>> Notice: The information contained in this e-mail
>>> message and/or attachments to it may contain
>>> confidential or privileged information. If you are
>>> not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use,
>>> review, distribution, printing or copying of the
>>> information contained in this e-mail message
>>> and/or attachments to it are strictly prohibited. If
>>> you have received this communication in error,
>>> please notify us by reply e-mail or telephone and
>>> immediately and permanently delete the message
>>> and any attachments. Thank you
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

Ruth Hoffman-2

Re: Removing /controller from URI

Hi Jacques:
Sorry I didn't see your original post. THANKS! This is great.
Ruth

On 12/14/11 6:45 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Hi Ruth,
>
> You may use http://www.tuckey.org/ (I already posted about that some
> years ago) simple and effective; just a new thing to learn ;o)
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Ruth Hoffman" <[hidden email]>
>> Hello All:
>> Are there any other suggestions?
>>
>> In the past I have used an Apache web server to map URLs and
>> effectively remove "control" from the path.
>>
>> I have also, in one case implemented something similar to Han's
>> suggestion. This however required changes to the ControlServlet. I'm
>> wondering if there aren't other alternatives?
>>
>> David? Other commiters? Any suggestions?
>>
>> Thanks much.
>> Ruth
>>
>> On 12/12/11 9:38 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>> Hi Saroy,
>>>
>>> You can checkout the SEO friendly url's in the trunk version for
>>> products, categories and content we implemented some time ago.
>>>
>>> A site which is using that is http://ofbiz.info which is running
>>> from OFBiz.
>>>
>>> example url's:
>>> http://www.ofbiz.info/OFBiz-s-Tax-Authority-Data-Model-explanations-94295-content
>>>
>>> http://www.ofbiz.info/OFBiz-General-OfbizInfoGeneral-c
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hans
>>>
>>> On 12/12/2011 09:09 PM, Saroj C wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> For all the pages the url is OFBiz looks something like
>>>> http://mydomain/context/controller/uri
>>>>
>>>> Is it anyway possible to remove the /controller from all the URI ?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and Regards,
>>>> Saroj
>>>> =====-----=====-----=====
>>>> Notice: The information contained in this e-mail
>>>> message and/or attachments to it may contain
>>>> confidential or privileged information. If you are
>>>> not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use,
>>>> review, distribution, printing or copying of the
>>>> information contained in this e-mail message
>>>> and/or attachments to it are strictly prohibited. If
>>>> you have received this communication in error,
>>>> please notify us by reply e-mail or telephone and
>>>> immediately and permanently delete the message
>>>> and any attachments. Thank you
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>

princesewani

Re: Removing /controller from URI

In reply to this post by Ruth Hoffman-2

Apache and SEO implementation can be used, you can write a program that generates the user-friendly urls for your application specific
data/pages,etc. and puts the mappings in a file and ask Apache Web Server to make use of it for re-directs.

Regards
Prince

________________________________
From: Ruth Hoffman <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: Removing /controller from URI

Hello All:
Are there any other suggestions?

In the past I have used an Apache web server to map URLs and effectively
remove "control" from the path.

I have also, in one case implemented something similar to Han's
suggestion. This however required changes to the ControlServlet. I'm
wondering if there aren't other alternatives?

David? Other commiters? Any suggestions?

Thanks much.
Ruth

On 12/12/11 9:38 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:

Regards
Prince