I'm confused Pierre, didn't you start this thread with a simple and straightforward solution to the createComponent task? Where did it diverge so that you now appear to be arguing against your original proposal? I'm sorry if I missed the divergence but I haven't been able to spot it.
Regards Scott On 26 July 2016 at 21:36, Pierre Smits <[email protected]> wrote: > Jacques, > > Of course there is nothing to prevent the two parameters to be the same. > But is that not in the domain of the adopter? And in relation to his > policies and procedures? > > In my viewpoint, this project should not limit the flexibility of the > product (for any - potential - adopter) just to cater to the viewpoint of a > (few) contributor(s). It is technically feasible (to differentiate between > the two parameters) and limiting this flexibility in the product will lead > to adopters having to spend more effort to make it work for them > (especially when taking into consideration the existing adopters with their > deviations from 'default' OFBiz). > > If that can be avoided with a few more considerations up front, I would say > it increases the appeal of the product (and the project, for - potential - > contributors to participate in.). > > If that doesn't provide you sufficient arguments, please elaborate more. > > Best regards, > > Pierre Smits > > ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> > OFBiz based solutions & services > > OFBiz Extensions Marketplace > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Jacques Le Roux < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Pierre all that is obvious to me, I expected a more argumented answer :) > > Maybe I did not well phrase my sentence, here is a new try: I still don't > > see what prevent componentId and componentName to be same > > > > Thanks > > > > Jacques > > > > Le 26/07/2016 à 10:10, Pierre Smits a écrit : > > > >> For starters: > >> > >> - A componentId needs to be unique > >> - A componentName need not be > >> > >> as an example: > >> -PcomponentId=1 -PcomponentName=webshop > >> -PcomponentId=2 -PcomponentName="webshop > >> > >> The componentName parameters is more for humans than for a software > >> system. > >> It provides convenience. And has less restrictions regarding format, eg: > >> > >> - -PcomponentName="This is a a large DESCRIPTIVE piece of T3xt" - is > >> allowable. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Pierre Smits > >> > >> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> > >> OFBiz based solutions & services > >> > >> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace > >> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ > >> > >> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Jacques Le Roux < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Le 26/07/2016 à 09:10, Pierre Smits a écrit : > >>> > >>> The basePermission parameters leads to a few things: > >>>> * being used in ofbiz-component.xml of the new component > >>>> * being used in the *SecurityPermissionSeedData.xml of the new > component > >>>> * being used in the *SecurityGroupDemoData.xml of the new component > >>>> > >>>> A specific security group is not set in the ofbiz-component.xml, where > >>>> OFBTOOLS is also defined. > >>>> > >>>> For what it is worth, we (in our environment) differentiate between > >>>> componentID and componentName and have enhanced the ANT task also in > >>>> such > >>>> a > >>>> way that we can make new components tenant specific and/or component > >>>> type > >>>> specific. > >>>> > >>>> What is the reason to differentiate componentID and componentName? > >>> > >>> Jacques > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >
