[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7112?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16423553#comment-16423553
]
Jacques Le Roux commented on OFBIZ-7112:
----------------------------------------
Hi Aditya,
Please don't, and let me explain why.
It's a long time now we have the SystemProperty entity. It was a good idea,
that [we spoke about |https://markmail.org/message/gdcefnghjtezyn4b] [even
|https://markmail.org/message/gdcefnghjtezyn4b] [longer
ago|https://markmail.org/message/gdcefnghjtezyn4b] before [it was
implemented|http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1238998]. I
believe it's a good idea but there are 2 flaws in the current implementation.
When we discussed about it before the implementation, it was clear that only
[business (ie not system) properties should be concerned|http://example.com/].
To be clear, for me the system properties are the properties in files at
framework/start/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/base/start and some other files
like freemarkerTransforms.properties, fop.properties, catalina.properties,
debug.properties, owasp.properties, security.properties,
requestHandler.properties, url.properties and maybe some others I missed :)
# So the 1st flaw was to name this entity SystemProperty. It should have been
named BusinessProperty. We could consider rename it, but that's minor in
comparison with the second flaw
# The second flaw is that we kept the business properties files. To avoid
duplication and confusion all the business properties should be in the database
and a specific UI should be created to easier handled them.
We should also remember that when the idea was 1st expressed and discussed
there were no tenants in OFBiz (introduced in 2010). With now tenants, having
business properties in data base is necessary and (almost?) all business
properties should be shareable by tenants (to be checked).
That's why I suggested to [Deprecate properties in favour of
SystemProperties|https://markmail.org/message/md6fuoouan377c6w]. I also
suggested to have specific multitenant and multitenant-initial readers for
business properties to separate those from other data. One thing I did not
check yet is if the data I then called "only for tenants" are the business
properties; and those which are not are system properties. A deeper analysis is
required but the idea seems to fit.
----
TL;DR: We will not resolve the SystemProperties issues w/o no longer using
properties files but for the system properties. Of course then renaming the
SystemProperty entity to BusinessProperty is necessary. Having a specific UI
for DB access for these properties is also necessary. I foresee the webtools as
the best place for this UI. It should be accessible by tenants.
And to finish the reason why I want to keep Wai's work, is sometimes you need
to annul a property. In this case the best way to do it in DB is how Wai
implemented it, so it should not be removed. Rather the duplicated properties
in files should be removed and replaced by properties in DB only.
> EntityUtilProperties
> --------------------
>
> Key: OFBIZ-7112
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7112
> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: ALL COMPONENTS
> Affects Versions: Trunk
> Reporter: Wai
> Assignee: Jacques Le Roux
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 17.12.01
>
> Attachments: OFBIZ-7112.patch, OFBIZ-7112.patch, OFBIZ-7112.patch,
> OFBIZ-7112.patch, OFBIZ-7112.patch
>
>
> Ofbiz reads properties from either a properties file or the
> entity:SystemProperty. The way it works previously is that ofbiz reads from
> the entity:SystemProperty first and if there is no value associated with the
> target propertyname, it would then locate the value from the relevant
> properties file.
> In other words, if there is a database entry for a property, the database
> entry should override the associated properties file.
> The issue is that if a database entry exist but the value is empty, it would
> look for a value from the properties file. It should not do so. If a
> database entry exists for the propertyname of interest, the value should be
> taken from the database even if it holds an empty value.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
