Le 07/04/2010 08:07, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
I would suggest to:
1) release 10.04 before the merge is done
2) merge the code to the trunk, switch to it, fix any possible issue
3) do another release (10.06?)
Sounds good to me !
--
Erwan de FERRIERES
www.nereide.biz
Thank Jacopo - that sounds a lot better than the all-or-nothing conversation.
-Adrian
--- On Tue, 4/6/10, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> From: Jacopo Cappellato
> Subject: Re: Security Redesign and Release 10.x Branch
> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, April 6, 2010, 11:07 PM
> I would su
Like it.
Thanks and Regards
Anil Patel
HotWax Media Inc
Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz"
On Apr 7, 2010, at 2:19 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2010, at 8:14 AM, Anil Patel wrote:
>
>> This makes sense to me.
>> Isn't this similar to what Eclipse d
On Apr 7, 2010, at 8:14 AM, Anil Patel wrote:
> This makes sense to me.
> Isn't this similar to what Eclipse does, RC1 ,RC2 Finally RC 6 becomes
> final release. Then final release is maintained.
>
> So we can do RC10.04, RC10.06, and at some point RC10.06 is stable to be
> released.
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3655?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Ashish Vijaywargiya reassigned OFBIZ-3655:
--
Assignee: Ashish Vijaywargiya
> When Order Items are cancelled, at the time of
This makes sense to me.
Isn't this similar to what Eclipse does, RC1 ,RC2 Finally RC 6 becomes
final release. Then final release is maintained.
So we can do RC10.04, RC10.06, and at some point RC10.06 is stable to be
released.
Thanks and Regards
Anil Patel
HotWax Media Inc
Find us on
+1 not sure on release overhead but release often is desirable from
where I sit. Nothing wrong with triggering on a major functional
addition.
Bob
On 2010-04-07, at 2:08 AM, Jacopo Cappellato > wrote:
I would suggest to:
1) release 10.04 before the merge is done
2) merge the code to the t
I would suggest to:
1) release 10.04 before the merge is done
2) merge the code to the trunk, switch to it, fix any possible issue
3) do another release (10.06?)
I know this is not inline with what we currently think a release should be, but
this is very inline with what the ASF practices and so
Scott Gray-2 wrote:
>
> On 6/04/2010, at 10:59 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> I think it is now time to remove the HtmlFormRenderer and
>> HtmlScreenRenderer (and the corresponding ViewHandler); they are no more
>> used...
>
My personal view is this is a big +1 ... however, is there going to
JIRA j...@apache.org wrote:
>
> Currently ProductPrice is used for selling goods and SupplierProduct is
> used for purchasing goods, I don't like the idea of blurring the lines
> between the two unnecessarily.
> Using that entity just because it happens to have a minimum quantity
> field on it
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3655?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12854355#action_12854355
]
Divesh Dutta commented on OFBIZ-3655:
-
Patch is attached for the given description.
>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3655?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Divesh Dutta updated OFBIZ-3655:
Attachment: OFBiz-3655.patch
> When Order Items are cancelled, at the time of editing the order, sy
When Order Items are cancelled, at the time of editing the order, system should
generate Order Note in Order Detail Page.
--
Key: OFBIZ-3655
U
Big plus one :-)
I think content component may still be using some of the html renderer stuff
though, I'll try and make a point to deal with that within the next week or so.
Regards
Scott
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
On 6/04/2010, at 10:59 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> I think it
I think it is now time to remove the HtmlFormRenderer and HtmlScreenRenderer
(and the corresponding ViewHandler); they are no more used...
Jacopo
On Apr 7, 2010, at 5:51 AM, lekt...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: lektran
> Date: Wed Apr 7 03:51:02 2010
> New Revision: 931422
>
> URL: http://svn.
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3633?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12854342#action_12854342
]
Deepak Dixit commented on OFBIZ-3633:
-
Thanks Scott,
That means we are fine with #1 (A
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3633?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12854338#action_12854338
]
Scott Gray commented on OFBIZ-3633:
---
Currently ProductPrice is used for selling goods and
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3652?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Hans Bakker closed OFBIZ-3652.
--
Resolution: Fixed
Thanks Willem for your contribution: Committed revision 931430
> Dutch labels patch
I remember the discussion about the new security when andy introduced it
I remember the push back then.
I believe you were the biggest supporter of the security change.
this is evident because of the energy you have put into it.
I also agree that the release will be obsolete regardless of the
addi
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3633?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12854329#action_12854329
]
Rishi Solanki commented on OFBIZ-3633:
--
Yes Scott, in case of ProductPrice we do not n
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3633?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12854324#action_12854324
]
Scott Gray commented on OFBIZ-3633:
---
Hi Rishi,
{quote}
1) Achieve this ProductPrice enti
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3633?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12854321#action_12854321
]
Rishi Solanki commented on OFBIZ-3633:
--
Me too agree on #3, but like to wait for Scott
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3633?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12854320#action_12854320
]
Rishi Solanki commented on OFBIZ-3633:
--
Robert Morley comment on dev ML:
- +1 for #3 -
That's not true and you know it - my email specifically addresses how much I
think it will be an improvement.
Cheers,
Ruppert
On Apr 6, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> I'm a little stunned by all the push back. A year ago there was a lot of
> enthusiasm for this. Now it seems I'm the on
Adrian,
I am not arguing against merging security context code into trunk. In fact we
will love to get it in trunk so it can we can use it.
Having it in brach will make sense only if we can use it and it will meet of
exceed the current security abilities of Ofbiz framework. If this is true then
On 6/04/2010, at 6:36 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> --- On Tue, 4/6/10, Scott Gray wrote:
>> On 6/04/2010, at 5:18 PM, Adrian Crum
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Adam Heath wrote:
Adrian Crum wrote:
> Anil Patel wrote:
>> I was thinking, Why not other way round.
>> As I understand, we will not be
--- On Tue, 4/6/10, Scott Gray wrote:
> On 6/04/2010, at 5:18 PM, Adrian Crum
> wrote:
>
> > Adam Heath wrote:
> >> Adrian Crum wrote:
> >>> Anil Patel wrote:
> I was thinking, Why not other way round.
> As I understand, we will not be able to
> use execution content features
> in
The Buildbot has detected a restored build of ofbiz-trunk on ASF Buildbot.
Full details are available at:
http://ci.apache.org/builders/ofbiz-trunk/builds/3115
Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/
Buildslave for this Build: isis_ubuntu
Build Reason:
Build Source Stamp: [branch ofbiz/trunk] 9313
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3562?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12854275#action_12854275
]
Ean Schuessler commented on OFBIZ-3562:
---
The *real* problem is that there is no strat
Returning "failure" from a shipment estimator has no impact on subsequent
processing
Key: OFBIZ-3654
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3654
Project: O
The Buildbot has detected a new failure of ofbiz-trunk on ASF Buildbot.
Full details are available at:
http://ci.apache.org/builders/ofbiz-trunk/builds/3114
Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/
Buildslave for this Build: isis_ubuntu
Build Reason:
Build Source Stamp: [branch ofbiz/trunk] 931374
Adam Heath wrote:
Adrian Crum wrote:
Adam Heath wrote:
Adrian Crum wrote:
Anil Patel wrote:
I was thinking, Why not other way round.
As I understand, we will not be able to use execution content features
in other parts of Ofbiz in time for 10.4 release. If this is the case
then additional cod
On 6/04/2010, at 5:18 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> Adam Heath wrote:
>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> Anil Patel wrote:
I was thinking, Why not other way round.
As I understand, we will not be able to use execution content features
in other parts of Ofbiz in time for 10.4 release. If this is t
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3653?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Blas Rodriguez Somoza updated OFBIZ-3653:
-
Description:
The css style of select tag in style.css
uses an height which is 1.6
Adrian Crum wrote:
> Adam Heath wrote:
>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> Anil Patel wrote:
I was thinking, Why not other way round.
As I understand, we will not be able to use execution content features
in other parts of Ofbiz in time for 10.4 release. If this is the case
then additiona
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3653?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Blas Rodriguez Somoza updated OFBIZ-3653:
-
Attachment: tomahawk_chrome_after.jpg
tomahawk_ie_after.jpg
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3653?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Blas Rodriguez Somoza updated OFBIZ-3653:
-
Attachment: tomahawk_chrome_before.jpg
tomahawk_ie_before.jpg
CSS Style for select wrong in tomahawk theme
Key: OFBIZ-3653
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3653
Project: OFBiz
Issue Type: Bug
Components: themes
Affects Versions:
Anil Patel wrote:
I am really not against merging executioncontext branch with trunk. I don't see reason to include it in upcoming release branch if we will not be using it. And yes, even though Webslinger is not a good examples we can still say that, decision put it in trunk was made too early,
Adam Heath wrote:
Adrian Crum wrote:
Anil Patel wrote:
I was thinking, Why not other way round.
As I understand, we will not be able to use execution content features
in other parts of Ofbiz in time for 10.4 release. If this is the case
then additional code in release branch may add some new is
Adrian Crum wrote:
> Anil Patel wrote:
>> I was thinking, Why not other way round.
>> As I understand, we will not be able to use execution content features
>> in other parts of Ofbiz in time for 10.4 release. If this is the case
>> then additional code in release branch may add some new issues but
On 6/04/2010, at 4:48 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> Scott Gray wrote:
>> On 6/04/2010, at 4:23 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> Scott Gray wrote:
On 6/04/2010, at 4:03 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> Scott Gray wrote:
>> On 6/04/2010, at 3:03 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> Anil Patel wrote:
I
Scott Gray wrote:
On 6/04/2010, at 4:23 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Scott Gray wrote:
On 6/04/2010, at 4:03 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Scott Gray wrote:
On 6/04/2010, at 3:03 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Anil Patel wrote:
I was thinking, Why not other way round. As I understand, we will not be able to use
On 6/04/2010, at 4:23 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> Scott Gray wrote:
>> On 6/04/2010, at 4:03 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> Scott Gray wrote:
On 6/04/2010, at 3:03 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> Anil Patel wrote:
>> I was thinking, Why not other way round. As I understand, we will not be
>> a
Scott Gray wrote:
On 6/04/2010, at 4:03 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Scott Gray wrote:
On 6/04/2010, at 3:03 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Anil Patel wrote:
I was thinking, Why not other way round. As I understand, we will not be able to use execution content features in other parts of Ofbiz in time for 1
On 6/04/2010, at 4:03 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> Scott Gray wrote:
>> On 6/04/2010, at 3:03 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> Anil Patel wrote:
I was thinking, Why not other way round. As I understand, we will not be
able to use execution content features in other parts of Ofbiz in time for
>>>
Scott Gray wrote:
On 6/04/2010, at 3:03 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Anil Patel wrote:
I was thinking, Why not other way round. As I understand, we will not be able to use execution content features in other parts of Ofbiz in time for 10.4 release. If this is the case then additional code in release
Inline
Cheers,
Ruppert
On Apr 6, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Anil Patel wrote:
> I am really not against merging executioncontext branch with trunk. I don't
> see reason to include it in upcoming release branch if we will not be using
> it.
+1 - I was writing an email explaining the same thing.
> An
I am really not against merging executioncontext branch with trunk. I don't see
reason to include it in upcoming release branch if we will not be using it.
And yes, even though Webslinger is not a good examples we can still say that,
decision put it in trunk was made too early, but its just me.
On 6/04/2010, at 3:03 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> Anil Patel wrote:
>> I was thinking, Why not other way round. As I understand, we will not be
>> able to use execution content features in other parts of Ofbiz in time for
>> 10.4 release. If this is the case then additional code in release branch m
Anil Patel wrote:
I was thinking, Why not other way round.
As I understand, we will not be able to use execution content features in other parts of Ofbiz in time for 10.4 release. If this is the case then additional code in release branch may add some new issues but will not add any benefits. Ri
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3649?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jacques Le Roux closed OFBIZ-3649.
--
Resolution: Fixed
Thanks Nicolas,
Your last patch is in trunk at r931326
> Accounting French
I was thinking, Why not other way round.
As I understand, we will not be able to use execution content features in other
parts of Ofbiz in time for 10.4 release. If this is the case then additional
code in release branch may add some new issues but will not add any benefits.
Right?
So IMO we
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3649?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
nicolas malin updated OFBIZ-3649:
-
Attachment: accounting.patch
Change label after mail with Jacques.
> Accounting French traductio
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3649?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
nicolas malin reopened OFBIZ-3649:
--
Some label can have a better traduction
> Accounting French traduction on invoiceType
> --
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3503?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12854159#action_12854159
]
Jacques Le Roux commented on OFBIZ-3503:
Hi Scott,
Yes I agree, why only removing
From: "Adam Heath"
Robert Morley wrote:
Introducing a new type "CART" as an OrderType does not feel right to
me. It would seem having an Order of type "SalesOrder" and being able
to influence which functionality you wish to execute on that entity via
its status (or additional attribute) might
From: "Adrian Crum"
Robert Morley wrote:
Also, we were talking in the office -- our understanding is that the
Cobertura license would restrict Ofbiz from redistribution, but it
should be able to use it as part of their build process. Do you think
there would be an issue include a target that
- Original Message -
From: "Nicolas Malin"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: svn commit: r931143 -
/ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/config/AccountingEntityLabels.xml
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Hi Erwan, Nicolas,
I know Nicolas has a better accouting backgrou
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Hi Erwan, Nicolas,
I know Nicolas has a better accouting background than me, but are you
sure of the translations below?
For instance, I'm not quite sure of
Return Additional Feature (caractéristiques additionnelles?)
Or "Retour option supplémentaire"
Return Discount (
Scott Gray wrote:
> On 6/04/2010, at 11:59 AM, Robert Morley wrote:
>
>> On Apr 6, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Morley wrote:
Here is my question -- when looking at the reports it showed 100% line code
coverage in UtilValidate (for example) but this was for 111 lines.
Robert Morley wrote:
>
> On Apr 6, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>
>> Bob Morley wrote:
>>>
>>> Here is my question -- when looking at the reports it showed 100%
>>> line code
>>> coverage in UtilValidate (for example) but this was for 111 lines.
>>> Clearly
>>> this class has many more li
Hello
Thanks to those who review/commit patches related with XHTML
validation (Adriam Crum, Bruno Busco and Jaques Le Roux)
Although there are still 15 patches waiting to be reviewed/committed
and probably I'll need to deliver 4 or 5 more, I think I've finished,
more or less, the valid
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3652?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Willem Janssen updated OFBIZ-3652:
--
Attachment: dutch_labels931244.diff
> Dutch labels patch
> --
>
>
Dutch labels patch
--
Key: OFBIZ-3652
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3652
Project: OFBiz
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: ALL APPLICATIONS
Affects Versions: SVN trunk
Reporter: W
+1 for #3 - I think that follows the intended use from the data model
On Apr 6, 2010, at 12:10 AM, Rishi Solanki (JIRA) wrote:
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3633?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12853724
#action_12853724
On 6/04/2010, at 11:59 AM, Robert Morley wrote:
>
> On Apr 6, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>
>> Bob Morley wrote:
>>>
>>> Here is my question -- when looking at the reports it showed 100% line code
>>> coverage in UtilValidate (for example) but this was for 111 lines. Clearly
>>> this c
Robert Morley wrote:
Also, we were talking in the office -- our understanding is that the
Cobertura license would restrict Ofbiz from redistribution, but it
should be able to use it as part of their build process. Do you think
there would be an issue include a target that downloads and deploys
On Apr 6, 2010, at 7:49 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> On Apr 6, 2010, at 7:02 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>
>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Apr 6, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> Wouldn't be easier to create a new UserLogin, a
On Apr 6, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
Bob Morley wrote:
Here is my question -- when looking at the reports it showed 100%
line code
coverage in UtilValidate (for example) but this was for 111 lines.
Clearly
this class has many more lines than that, and when I opened it up I
saw
Bob Morley wrote:
> Got this running this morning. Have created a minor set of tweaks as ticket
> OFBIZ-3651; if someone familiar with the Cobertura integration could review
> that would be helpful.
>
> If someone is trying to run these here are a few little pointers:
>
> - download Cobertura v1
Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2010, at 7:02 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>
>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> On Apr 6, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>
Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> Wouldn't be easier to create a new UserLogin, associate it to the same
> Person and expire the old o
Adrian Crum wrote:
> Adam Heath wrote:
>> Using a shoppinglist to save a cart is very poor form. You'll not be
>> able to save shipgroup assignments, postal address per shipgroup,
>> shipping method, virtual product features, payment settings, promo
>> codes, tons of stuff. We need to be able to
Got this running this morning. Have created a minor set of tweaks as ticket
OFBIZ-3651; if someone familiar with the Cobertura integration could review
that would be helpful.
If someone is trying to run these here are a few little pointers:
- download Cobertura v1.9.3, drop the cobertura.jar in
Adam Heath wrote:
Using a shoppinglist to save a cart is very poor form. You'll not be
able to save shipgroup assignments, postal address per shipgroup,
shipping method, virtual product features, payment settings, promo
codes, tons of stuff. We need to be able to restore *all* these things.
W
On Apr 6, 2010, at 7:02 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> On Apr 6, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>
>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Wouldn't be easier to create a new UserLogin, associate it to the same
Person and expire the old one?
>>> No. Tons of entities hav
Robert Morley wrote:
> Introducing a new type "CART" as an OrderType does not feel right to
> me. It would seem having an Order of type "SalesOrder" and being able
> to influence which functionality you wish to execute on that entity via
> its status (or additional attribute) might be work conside
Minor tweaks to the Cobertura integration
-
Key: OFBIZ-3651
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3651
Project: OFBiz
Issue Type: Bug
Components: framework
Affects Versions: SV
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3651?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Bob Morley updated OFBIZ-3651:
--
Attachment: OFBIZ-3651_CoberturaMinorEnhancements.patch
> Minor tweaks to the Cobertura integration
> -
Introducing a new type "CART" as an OrderType does not feel right to
me. It would seem having an Order of type "SalesOrder" and being able
to influence which functionality you wish to execute on that entity
via its status (or additional attribute) might be work considering.
We had a very
On 6/04/2010, at 11:05 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
> lekt...@apache.org wrote:
>> -if (recentArtifactInfoList &&
>> recentArtifactInfoList.get(0).equals(artifactInfo)) {
>> +if (recentArtifactInfoList &&
>> recentArtifactInfoList.get(0).equals(artifactInfoMap)) {
>
> Same here, recentArtifact
On 6/04/2010, at 11:04 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
> lekt...@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: lektran
>> Date: Tue Apr 6 17:00:05 2010
>> New Revision: 931222
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=931222&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Store the ArtifactInfo's Recently Viewed Artifacts list in the session as
>
lekt...@apache.org wrote:
> -if (recentArtifactInfoList &&
> recentArtifactInfoList.get(0).equals(artifactInfo)) {
> +if (recentArtifactInfoList &&
> recentArtifactInfoList.get(0).equals(artifactInfoMap)) {
Same here, recentArtifactInfoList[0] == artifactInfoMap. Might be
able to do foo
lekt...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: lektran
> Date: Tue Apr 6 17:00:05 2010
> New Revision: 931222
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=931222&view=rev
> Log:
> Store the ArtifactInfo's Recently Viewed Artifacts list in the session as
> basic maps instead of ArtifactInfoBase objects that ar
Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>
>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> Wouldn't be easier to create a new UserLogin, associate it to the same
>>> Person and expire the old one?
>> No. Tons of entities have a createdByUserLogin,
>> lastModifiedByUserLogin, ther
BJ Freeman wrote:
> once coded to do all that is not going to be hard.
> it would run up the cpu usage and database activity but on a dedicated
> server that should not be a problem.
>
> Plus I think it is good for audit to keep all the records synced to the
> current lognin
My recommendation wou
Using a shoppinglist to save a cart is very poor form. You'll not be
able to save shipgroup assignments, postal address per shipgroup,
shipping method, virtual product features, payment settings, promo
codes, tons of stuff. We need to be able to restore *all* these things.
Saving the cart to an
XHTML Validation - Form Widget with type= list|multi and
separate-columns="true" renders bad markup
---
Key: OFBIZ-3650
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBI
once coded to do all that is not going to be hard.
it would run up the cpu usage and database activity but on a dedicated
server that should not be a problem.
Plus I think it is good for audit to keep all the records synced to the
current lognin
BJ Freeman
http://bjfreem
On 6/04/2010, at 10:16 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>
>> But you can't reuse old logins for anyone else.
>
> This requirement (reusing expired user logins for new parties) is the only
> reason (together with the realm thing mentioned in another wa
On Apr 6, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
> But you can't reuse old logins for anyone else.
This requirement (reusing expired user logins for new parties) is the only
reason (together with the realm thing mentioned in another way) I see for
modifying the UserLogin entity.
If this is what yo
On Apr 6, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> Wouldn't be easier to create a new UserLogin, associate it to the same
>> Person and expire the old one?
>
> No. Tons of entities have a createdByUserLogin,
> lastModifiedByUserLogin, there's UserLoginHistory,
> UserLo
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3647?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12854036#action_12854036
]
Scott Gray commented on OFBIZ-3647:
---
Hi Nicolas,
Thanks for the patch, here is my review
I've the same idea.
+1
Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Wouldn't be easier to create a new UserLogin, associate it to the same Person
and expire the old one?
Jacopo
On Apr 6, 2010, at 5:43 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
Why oh why does the primary key for UserLogin get used as the actual
username during
Ruth Hoffman wrote:
> Hi Adam:
> I thought that was the idea behind having a PARTY entity and a partyId.
> When you use the PARTY as the unique user identifier, a user may have
> any number of user logins, email addresses etc.
But you can't reuse old logins for anyone else. And security is
attach
Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> Wouldn't be easier to create a new UserLogin, associate it to the same Person
> and expire the old one?
No. Tons of entities have a createdByUserLogin,
lastModifiedByUserLogin, there's UserLoginHistory,
UserLoginSecurityGroup, etc.
You'd have to modify *all* those ent
Hi Adam:
I thought that was the idea behind having a PARTY entity and a partyId.
When you use the PARTY as the unique user identifier, a user may have
any number of user logins, email addresses etc.
Regards,
Ruth
Adam Heath wrote:
Why oh why does the primary key for UserLogin get used as the
Wouldn't be easier to create a new UserLogin, associate it to the same Person
and expire the old one?
Jacopo
On Apr 6, 2010, at 5:43 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
> Why oh why does the primary key for UserLogin get used as the actual
> username during login? This makes it *very* difficult for users t
David E Jones wrote:
> A couple of questions for you:
>
> 1. when a user "changes" their username what should happen with the old one?
> should it be available for another user to pick up?
If username is disconnected from the item that maintains security,
then old usernames won't exist at all, o
I agree that it is inconvenient. Either solution will take a lot of work.
-Adrian
Adam Heath wrote:
Why oh why does the primary key for UserLogin get used as the actual
username during login? This makes it *very* difficult for users to
change their username. Even more confusing when the email
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
