Hi Adrian, did you look into portla-controller.xml ? I used several save-last-view there.
-Bruno 2010/12/21 Adrian Crum <[email protected]> > 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<[email protected]> >> 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<[email protected]> >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>
