IMO instead of thinking to support different UI framework we can define our
standard html and then write css based on it.
If anyone want to plug different UI framework then user can create new
template file and and set it in widget.properties.
Thanks & Regards
--
Deepak Dixit
www.hotwaxsystems.
These are good news, Nicolas :-)
I started to review your efforts on common-theme but might not have
digged deep enough to notice the separation layer (there are many
changes already). I thought that it just moved the base theme and images
stuff out of the framework.
I really appreciate your
Michael the separation layer between html/css/js lib and the model
screen is already done on the common-theme present on my github repo (1)
without break older theme.
This it's the easier face on the problem, because the hidden face is
present with elements who use macro without ui rendering l
I'm currently twisting my had around the question of theme compatibility.
The current theme set and the html code (freemarker templates and the
code produced by forms and widgets) correspond with each other (naturally).
So if we want to introduce a new CSS framework like Bootstrap, we will
ha
I faced something similar in the past (Not related to OFBiz). Many
systems require different paths of configuration depending on
different deployment scenarios.
There are multiple types of configurations I can think of including:
- platform dependent configurations (it depends on your server and t
Hi Gil,
we have similar challenges and modified OFBiz to deal with it easily. We
offered to contribute this long time ago (2008) but it was decided
against [1]. It was suggested to use patches instead but I think it's
too complicated to manage several patch sets for different environments.
W
Hello all,
Working with different hosting companies, we used to have issues when
deploying OFBiz concerning technical configuration of the different
environments.
We are writing this mail to get feedback from the community and
eventually propose to improve OFBiz on this matter.
For a custome
Hi Michael,
I agreed it will be going too far if we adopt JSF.
Maybe better value to spend on improving what OFBiz already have.
Regards,
James Yong
On 2017/07/04 14:57:33, Michael Brohl wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> thanks for your suggestions.
>
> As far as I know, JSF would introduce some new te
Ah, thanks for the pointer, Jacques.
I forgot about this and will have a look at the work Nicolas did there
so far.
Regards,
Michael
Am 05.07.17 um 14:09 schrieb Jacques Le Roux:
That makes sense Taher and was already discussed and mostly agreed IIRW.
There is even a Jira for that
https:
The Buildbot has detected a restored build on builder ofbiz-branch16 while
building . Full details are available at:
https://ci.apache.org/builders/ofbiz-branch16/builds/78
Buildbot URL: https://ci.apache.org/
Buildslave for this Build: silvanus_ubuntu
Build Reason: The AnyBranchScheduler s
That makes sense Taher and was already discussed and mostly agreed IIRW.
There is even a Jira for that https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5776
Jacques
Le 05/07/2017 à 13:40, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
Hi Michael,
My suggestion (other opinions might enrich the discussion) is to limit
The Buildbot has detected a build exception on builder ofbiz-trunk-framework
while building . Full details are available at:
https://ci.apache.org/builders/ofbiz-trunk-framework/builds/250
Buildbot URL: https://ci.apache.org/
Buildslave for this Build: orcus_ubuntu
Build Reason: The AnyBran
Hi Michael,
My suggestion (other opinions might enrich the discussion) is to limit
current work to moving actual web items (html, css, javascript, images and
so on).
Moving ftl might be too much work and perhaps widgets should stay where
they are. What I suggest moving is things that live in the
Hi Taher,
do I understand you correctly that you want to move all screen
definitions and the ftl template files (containing the html) to a
central component outside the framework/applications?
Regards,
Michael
Am 04.07.17 um 23:50 schrieb Taher Alkhateeb:
Hi Michael,
I think we agree, just
14 matches
Mail list logo