+1
Would like to see the definitions organized in a way that makes it easy
to see what entities are mandatory "as is" as opposed to customizable.
Might also want to consider having multiple variations of the entities
to support different industries, different management focuses or languages.
These could be contributed by users and maintained by users rather than
developers.
Ron
On 11/06/2015 3:46 AM, Sharan-F wrote:
Hi All
I'd like to get some feedback on the a proposal Jacopo made a while ago to
find out if we have enough consenus to include it in our upcoming Community
Day.
*/Some time ago I proposed to move all entity definitions from the
applications components into a separate one; this component could also
contain crud/generic services: in this way it will be easier to deploy the
framework+data-model without the user interfaces that are not as generic and
universal as the data model is. In my opinion this would be a good step in
the right direction and it would be very easy to implement. /*
So my questions to you all are :
1. Can we reach a consenus as to whether or not we want to do it?
2. And if so, whether we want to include it as part of the work for our
Community Day next week?
Thanks
Sharan
--
View this message in context:
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Move-Application-Entity-Definitions-to-A-Separate-Component-tp4669903.html
Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
