[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8297?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17028363#comment-17028363
]
Michael Brohl commented on OFBIZ-8297:
--------------------------------------
{quote}Michael,
First you claimed that the provided patch would break functionality.
However if you would have looked a little further you would have found that the
key-value pair exists in CommonSystemPropertyData since 2012-02-01 see
[https://fisheye.apache.org/browse/ofbiz-framework/framework/common/data/CommonSystemPropertyData.xml?r2=13ff4e3f4c6f41864d62c6cdb6931a02f4b85e73&r1=c690a5aba578f0df25df572cec734f4eb3c57038]
The CommonSystemPropertyData is loaded as seed data (see the
ofbiz-component.xml.
{quote}
I am aware of this. With the patch you changed the retrieval of the property
from file properties to just database driven SystemProperty.
This assumes that users always use the SystemProperty mechanism to retrieve
properties which is not valid. There are good reasons to not use SystemProperty
at all as a default and just use it to override file properties at runtime,
especially when you have a multi stage server setup with different property
sets.
So if you want to enhance the mechanism to cover both worlds correctly, you
should use the EntityUtilProperties mechanism.
{quote}In 2019 you claimed the patch was incomplete, without providing
additional information.
{quote}
Correct, see above. The patch is breaking existing mechanisms and therefore can
be viewed as incomplete.
{quote}It seems to me you were 'managing' the ticket and expecting others (me)
to resolve your concerns, instead of working it yourself.
{quote}
If a contributor provides a patch, it is the committers responsibility to check
if the solution is valid, does not break functionality and has an overall
quality to be introduced to the codebase. This does IMO not imply that he is
responsible to rework a patch until it fits. It's a strange viewpoint to expect
the committer to do the corrections himself instead of the original contributor
feeling responsible for his solution.
As you can see from the history, I gave my opinions and asked you to rework it
with a hint what is wrong with the first solution.
*No answer for a year.*
I then asked you if your are going to provide a corrected patch (note that I
picked it up again, not you). You then criticized that the patch is getting old
and asked me to rework your patch and immediately got an answer from me.
*No answer for another year.* I closed the issue as announced a year ago.
That's where we are now and you are going to criticize how I deal with this
ticket instead of working on the solution you want to be in the codebase?
This pattern repeats on several of your issues and might be one of the reasons
why they are picked up by the community less frequently than others.
> Convert <property-to field functions to tenant-aware solutions
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OFBIZ-8297
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-8297
> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: ALL COMPONENTS
> Affects Versions: Trunk
> Reporter: Pierre Smits
> Assignee: Michael Brohl
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: OFBIZ-8297-AgreementScreens.xml.patch,
> OFBIZ-8297-AgreementScreens.xml.patch
>
>
> *<property-to-field* functions look specifically to content in .property
> files when it comes to retrieving configuration variables. This doesn't work
> in a multi-tenant setup.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
