Re: Framework Independence

[Adrian Crum]

I am nearly finished with the security UI artifacts move. I have one 
issue preventing me from finishing it and I need some help from the 
community.

The updated code has Party Manager reusing security screens and forms 
from the common component. It all works great with a few exceptions. The 
user login screenlet in the View Profile page has links to special 
screens for adding/editing user logins and assigning user logins to 
security groups. The forms in those screens are from the common 
component and they call shared security events - so the user is returned 
to the shared security screen and not the Party Manager special screen. 
I need a way to dynamically define the "success" response view on an event.

To illustrate, this request:

<request-map uri="ProfileEditUserLogin">
    <security https="true" auth="true"/>
    <response name="success" type="view" value="ProfileEditUserLogin"/>
</request-map>

will invoke this event when the user clicks Save:

<request-map uri="updateUserLoginSecurity">
    <security https="true" auth="true"/>
    <event type="service" path="" invoke="updateUserLoginSecurity"/>
    <response name="success" type="view" value="EditUserLogin"/>
    <response name="error" type="view" value="EditUserLogin"/>
</request-map>

because Party Manager shares a security-related controller XML file and 
screen widgets. I need the updateUserLoginSecurity event to return to 
the ProfileEditUserLogin screen instead of EditUserLogin - but without 
changing the shared updateUserLoginSecurity request-map.

I thought I could use the view-save and view-last stuff, but I can't 
find any documentation on how it works. I tried using it based on 
existing code but I'm not having any success.

Any ideas?

-Adrian



On 12/18/2010 7:18 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
I will be working on that today.

-Adrian

--- On Sat, 12/18/10, Jacopo Cappellato<jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com>  
wrote:
IMO the best way to go at this point
is to move the ui for the administration of user logins and
permissions from the party to the webtools web application.
In this way, in a framework only setup, we will have some
screens to create new user accounts and administer them. I
don't think that we have to provide screens addressed to
users (not administrators) to manage their user preferences:
the nature of this ui would be too much dependent on the
nature of the custom applications that will be used with the
framework.

Kind regards,

Jacopo

On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Bruno Busco wrote:

By clicking on the party's name in the header the user
is directed to this
screen:
https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin

Here there are lots of links and information related
to all kind of things:
orders, invoices, visits etc.
In a framework-only installation this screen should
only allow the user to
access to its personal information, password,
preferences etc.
How could we get this?
Could we replace this screen with a (non
user-editable) PortalPage where
every installed application could add their
screenlets?

Thank you,
Bruno

2010/12/16 David E Jones<d...@me.com>


Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the
framework more (or
totally) independent from the applications and
specialpurpose components.
The only question is the best way to do that, and
it looks like as far as a
general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts
from application
components to framework components) a fair
consensus is being reached
quickly.

Of course, this is helped by lots of previous
discussion on this topic.

-David


On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:

I don't think you will find a consensus so
just need to branch your own
frame work as I did.


=========================
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier
Automation<
http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man


Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010
10:40 AM:
To clarify, I'm trying to get the
components in the framework folder to
run by themselves - without the components
found in the applications
folder. Some of the framework components
have UIs.

I understand everyone has a different
opinion on what constitutes a
framework, so I don't want to rehash that
discussion. I just want to
disable the components in the applications
folder and still have OFBiz
run.

-Adrian

On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
first question is should there be any
UI activity at the framework
level.
Should not it just be the support to
allow a UI system to put
installed.
when I mean UI I am talking about any
interaction to the user.

=========================
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier
Automation
<http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man


Adrian Crum sent the following on
12/15/2010 9:52 AM:
I'm working on a project that
requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm
trying to get a framework-only
installation to run.

There are a lot of dependencies on
the party and content components.
Removing dependencies on the party
component should be fairly easy.
The
online help system uses the
content component, so that is an issue.
Should we move the content
component to the framework?

-Adrian