I have no idea. I'm sure it made sense at 1:21 AM though.
-Adrian
Scott Gray wrote:
Thanks for sharing, but what is the relevance?
Regards
Scott
On 8/04/2010, at 1:21 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
An OFbiz feature - you can override service definitions.
-Adrian
--- On Wed, 4/7/10, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: svn commit: r931787 -
/ofbiz/trunk/applications/securityext/servicedef/services.xml
To: [email protected]
Date: Wednesday, April 7, 2010, 10:52 PM
Author: lektran
Date: Thu Apr 8 05:52:37 2010
New Revision: 931787
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=931787&view=rev
Log:
Service definition was pointing to the wrong implementation
location, strange that they're in different components
Modified:
ofbiz/trunk/applications/securityext/servicedef/services.xml
Modified:
ofbiz/trunk/applications/securityext/servicedef/services.xml
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/applications/securityext/servicedef/services.xml?rev=931787&r1=931786&r2=931787&view=diff
==============================================================================
---
ofbiz/trunk/applications/securityext/servicedef/services.xml
(original)
+++
ofbiz/trunk/applications/securityext/servicedef/services.xml
Thu Apr 8 05:52:37 2010
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ under the License.
<!-- permission check -->
<service
name="securityPermissionCheck" engine="simple"
-
location="component://securityext/script/org/ofbiz/common/permission/CommonPermissionServices.xml"
invoke="genericBasePermissionCheck">
+
location="component://common/script/org/ofbiz/common/permission/CommonPermissionServices.xml"
invoke="genericBasePermissionCheck">
<implements
service="permissionInterface"/>
<attribute
name="primaryPermission" type="String" mode="IN"
optional="true" default-value="SECURITY"/>
</service>
