I'm not against reverting myself. Doing so it also means that everybody agree
about continuing to use the FormFieldTitle_ feature
So if you really don't like it and have arguments, it's the moment to raise your hand. Before I revert in, say 2 days, and put this discussion back in
the limbo
Jacques
Le 21/09/2016 à 16:04, Michael Brohl a écrit :
Jacques,
please take care of the revert, this will keep the commit history cleaner.
Thanks,
Michael
Am 21.09.16 um 14:04 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
I'm not against reverting it, it's a moot point to me. Please help yourselves
(Michael or Taher. Or maybe Christian? :D)
Jacques
Le 21/09/2016 à 11:11, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
I suggest also to revert. If we want to apply such a change in the future
then we must take a decision to stop using convention-over-configuration
for _all_ widget fields. And if we do not want to use that convention then
we should remove the related code accordingly.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Michael Brohl <michael.br...@ecomify.de>
wrote:
I'd suggest to revert this commit.
Thanks,
Michael
Am 21.09.16 um 09:47 schrieb gil portenseigne:
Hi Jacques,
Like Nicolas said in previous Michael commit answer:
http://markmail.org/message/x4ulworuwgbotvrv?q=r1761332
I do not understand these kindof improvements. Adding a title when and
FormFieldTitle_XXX properties exists is not good in my opinion (i did not
check these ones).
Moreover i liked Michael answer on this JIRA :
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8056?focusedComm
entId=15501066&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.
issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15501066
Gil
Le 21/09/2016 à 09:34, jler...@apache.org a écrit :
Author: jleroux
Date: Wed Sep 21 07:34:13 2016
New Revision: 1761687
URL:http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1761687&view=rev
Log:
Improves: Maximise the utilisation of common labels in various
applications
(OFBIZ-8110)
There are many commonalities among entity field definitions. Often these
field
definitions have led to unique label definitions, where a shared
(common) label
could have sufficed.
As examples you can take:
* the various Id fields (where for most label CommonId could be used)
* the various Type fields (where for most label CommonType could be used)
This is a placeholder ticket, intended to capture applicable issues as
sub tasks
to address the aspect of maximising the utilisation of labels in the
CommonUiLabels.xml file and to track progress.
Thanks: Pierre Smits
Modified:
ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/myportal/widget/PortalAdmForms.xml
Modified: ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/myportal/widget/PortalAdmForms.xml
URL:http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/
myportal/widget/PortalAdmForms.xml?rev=1761687
&r1=1761686&r2=1761687&view=diff
============================================================
==================
--- ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/myportal/widget/PortalAdmForms.xml
(original)
+++ ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/myportal/widget/PortalAdmForms.xml Wed
Sep 21 07:34:13 2016
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ under the License.
<field name="originalPortalPageId"
position="2"><text-find/></field>
<field name="portalPageName" title="${uiLabelMap.CommonName
}"><text-find/></field>
<field name="parentPortalPageId" position="2"><text-find/></fie
ld>
- <field name="description"><text-find/></field>
+ <field name="description" title="${uiLabelMap.CommonDesc
ription}"><text-find/></field>
<field name="securityGroupId" position="2"
title="${uiLabelMap.CommonSecurityGroupId}"><text-find/></field>
<field name="searchButton" title="${uiLabelMap.CommonFind}"
widget-style="smallSubmit"><submit button-type="button"/></field>
</form>
@@ -88,8 +88,8 @@ under the License.
<text/>
</field>
<field name="parentPortalPageId" position="2"><text/></field>
- <field name="portalPageName"><text/></field>
- <field name="description" position="2"><text size="60"/></field>
+ <field name="portalPageName" title="${uiLabelMap.CommonName
}"><text/></field>
+ <field name="description" title="${uiLabelMap.CommonDescription}"
position="2"><text size="60"/></field>
<field name="sequenceNum"><text/></field>
<field name="securityGroupId" >
<drop-down allow-empty="true">