Jacques,

just 2 days are not much for discussion in an open source community. Please have in mind that people might not have the time to think about and answer to the discussion in such a short timeframe. Most of us are working full time.

I see no need to hurry and propose to put down the vote and wait for at least a week to see if there are additional opinions.

Thanks,

Michael


Am 22.08.18 um 14:02 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
Thanks Julien,

At this stage, after 2 days, we already have diverse answers and it's hard to see a clear answer/consensus from that.
So after this [PROPOSITION] I'll start 2 [VOTE]s, for:

1. Demos: replace old by trunk framework only?
2. Hide, remove or let as is UI links in framework (including applications) to plugins?

BTW Julien, no need to put me in copy, I assiduously follow the OFBiz MLs ;)

Jacques


Le 22/08/2018 à 10:13, Julien NICOLAS a écrit :
Hi all,

My opinion is to hide the link instead of delete it. I don't know if we have other link in this case but it could be important to keep it in source code. It could be convenient to have it for replacement by the good solution

But in the same time, we need to think about inter-webapp connection. How a menu from webapp A could be extended by webapp B without putting code in webapp A.

It could be interesting to have a new tool bar in product to manage ecommerce when ecommerce is installed. If we have this kind of feature, it could work as well for OOTB webapp like product and stock, party and order, etc.

Julien.


Le 21/08/2018 à 10:10, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
OK, that your and Michael's opinions. So you prefer NPEs in code than hiding them when necessary?

What others think?

Jacques


Le 21/08/2018 à 09:45, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
Again, hiding is not a solution and is correcting an error with another
error.

-1

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 10:37 AM Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
wrote:

See my answer in the Jira, we can't tolerate NPEs, they are already there
for too long

Being smart is cool, being smart and clean is better ;)

Jacques


Le 21/08/2018 à 08:57, Michael Brohl a écrit :
We should neither simply remove those links nor should we have anything
hard coded.
Let's look for a smarter solution. No need to hurry, better take some
time to implement something sustainable.
Regards,

Michael Brohl
ecomify GmbH
www.ecomify.de


Am 21.08.18 um 07:00 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
Of course, but I like to be able to get from the backend to the
frontend when it's possible.
I don't see any troubles keeping them once it's handled that way, but
theoretical ones .
Of course if the community prefers to remove them it's far easier and
was what I wanted to do initially before having this idea of hiding links
Jacques


Le 21/08/2018 à 01:03, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
Simple, don't put any logic that points outwards from the framework.
That
is sort of why we split repositories in the first place.

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018, 8:00 PM Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
wrote:

Le 20/08/2018 à 16:53, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
Makes sense. However, i note reading in the JIRA that "we can simply
hide
the button when the ecommerce component is not present". That sounds
like
logic that points outwards which is a bad design IMHO.
I could not find a better way yet, I'm all ears for ideas.

Anyway, I think it is a reasonable step to take. +1
I attached a patch for today at OFBIZ-9241

Jacques

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018, 5:31 PM Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
wrote:

Hi,

The proposition is in the title.

With the changes I'm introducing with OFBIZ-9241 there will few
differences in UI (and presence of js files) between the framework
only
and
the
framework+plugins

I must add:

     * since the old is often no longer supported and a release of
it is
always available (today R13) for users. I think removing the old
demo is
maybe
       not a big deal.
     * I found several cases where people, new to OFBiz, considered
OFBiz
as
what we call the framework, and were considering the plugins as
optional.
What do you think?

Jacques












Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Reply via email to