I agree completely regarding the need for fully exposed business logic and I
think Anil's been saying the same thing. IMO it's the first and most important
step that needs to be taken towards modernizing the OFBiz UI.
Regards
Scott
On 31/01/2014, at 4:01 PM, Ean Schuessler wrote:
I
Moqui copies problems from our existing framework, I want to fix them.
You'd probably need to go into more detail on that, if I'm not mistaken Moqui's
intention was to do the opposite.
Personally I don't think you're going to get much support for a full framework
rewrite, initially at least,
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5476?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13874708#comment-13874708
]
Scott Gray commented on OFBIZ-5476:
---
I'd prefer we didn't do anything that encourages
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5448?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13861414#comment-13861414
]
Scott Gray commented on OFBIZ-5448:
---
Hi Jacques, what is DCC?
Have Ivy download
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5448?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13861475#comment-13861475
]
Scott Gray commented on OFBIZ-5448:
---
Ah okay thanks, I hadn't seen that page
Have Ivy
Then much more changes can be envisionned...
Such as?
Regards
Scott
On 7/12/2013, at 1:39 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
I think it's safe to move over to Java 7 without any changes.
I have run OFBiz locally - dev mode - for a long time using Java 7, until
recently where I moved back to Java
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5358?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Scott Gray closed OFBIZ-5358.
-
Resolution: Fixed
It seems this has already been taken care of, closing the ticket.
Wrong to refer
the misconduct. But it's not a reason to put
all on him and not try to get things better.
This is my opinion (Jira is our friend)
Jacques
Scott Gray wrote:
Stop trying to create some sort of solution to a non-existent problem.
Things get refactored and sometimes it causes issues
and why Adrian
did, and ask for help on the dev ML, instead of abruptly reverting Adrian's
commit (unfair).-
As I said, I agree Hans made the misconduct. But it's not a reason to put all
on him and not try to get things better.
This is my opinion (Jira is our friend)
Jacques
Scott
Stop trying to create some sort of solution to a non-existent problem. Things
get refactored and sometimes it causes issues, that is the nature of the trunk
and Hans can deal with it the same as anyone else, by reporting and/or fixing
issues first, and then reverting if no reasonably quick
Carsten is referring to this:
On confirmation of the production run (action = Confirm), the AtP of the
product to be produced must increase
ATP for the products to be produced shouldn't increase until they are actually
available.
Regards
Scott
On 21/08/2013, at 1:14 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13731893#comment-13731893
]
Scott Gray commented on OFBIZ-5283:
---
A lack of errors isn't the only indicator
My opinion is that we should release whenever we (the community) feel the
features added since the last release warrant it. There's no point in making
releases if they add little value on the previous and there's no point in
waiting some arbitrary amount of time before releasing good features.
I replaced by
MapString, Object postalAddress = new HashMapString, Object();
postalAddress.put(userLogin, userLogin);
The correct approach is:
MapString, Object postalAddress = UtilMisc.String, ObjecttoMap(userLogin,
userLogin);
Regards
Scott
On 27/07/2013, at 8:48 PM, Jacques Le Roux
I just want to bump this on the lists since that Douglas Cook idiot was causing
a distraction.
It's very important that everyone with the OFBiz versions mentioned below (and
trunk checkouts prior to r1500772) either upgrade or patch their installations
as soon as possible. I cannot stress
Jira mails go through the dev list unless you're watching the issue.
Regards
Scott
On 19/07/2013, at 8:45 PM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote:
Then maybe you just have to unregister from Jira
Since I don't know how to do it and it's not obvious in UI, please ask
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5277?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13712173#comment-13712173
]
Scott Gray commented on OFBIZ-5277:
---
M3-Liquid doesn't seem to be any sort of standard
+1
Regards
Scott
On 14/07/2013, at 1:10 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 10.04
branch. This new release, Apache OFBiz 10.04.06 (major release number:
10.04; minor release number: 06), will supersede the release Apache
OFBiz
+1
Regards
Scott
On 14/07/2013, at 1:13 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 12.04
branch. This new release, Apache OFBiz 12.04.02 (major release number:
12.04; minor release number: 02), will supersede the release Apache
OFBiz
+1
Regards
Scott
On 14/07/2013, at 1:13 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 11.04
branch. This new release, Apache OFBiz 11.04.03 (major release number:
11.04; minor release number: 03), will supersede the release Apache
OFBiz
I disagree, Pierre's reply was nothing more than blatant trolling. It added
absolutely nothing to the conversation and he was attempting only to annoy. He
succeeded, but we can't blame Jacopo for that.
Regards
Scott
On 12/07/2013, at 3:25 AM, Christian Geisert christian.geis...@isu-gmbh.de
Your inability to argue the points is obvious to all.
Regards
Scott
On 9/07/2013, at 7:13 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
if this is how you intend to interact with OFBiz users then I'd strongly
encourage you to resign from the OFBiz PMC. It's really not the type of
project management we need.
Perhaps have a clue what you're talking about before commenting. The removal
of this code was already discussed a few weeks ago and no objections were
raised.
Scott
On 8/07/2013, at 7:29 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
Removing code from trunk without consulting others before the removal,
without
This is a public list for the development of the OFBiz project, everyone is
free to join into the discussions and this is exactly the right place to have
them. The tool in question had only existed in the trunk for a short amount of
time and had never been part of a release. The request to
IMO the bigger question to consider is why does this link have an event
attached to it? What makes it so special that it needs one when virtually
every other navigation link doesn't?
Regards
Scott
On 6/07/2013, at 8:18 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Hoo, thanks Deepak!
Jacques
Deepak
Pretty is irrelevant Hans, it's about document structure. It's pointless
wrapping everything in a screenlet or we may as well not even have the widget
in the first place and have it embedded in the decorator instead. Using bad
layouts as a justification for more of them is silly.
Regards
+1 but I don't really have a stake in that game. Things got a bit to
complicated for me when the ASF started doing that weird export thing.
Regards
Scott
On 4/07/2013, at 10:24 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Hi all,
in order to start the process of cleaning up the mess in our Confluence
It would be worth considering looking at integrating with something like Vend
as another option. Building a well functioning mobile POS is a long and hard
road to travel.
Regards
Scott
On 29/06/2013, at 2:32 PM, Hans Bakker mailingl...@antwebsystems.com wrote:
Jacques, to be honest with you
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4794?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13694280#comment-13694280
]
Scott Gray commented on OFBIZ-4794:
---
1. I never suggested adding (yet another) ant
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4794?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13692891#comment-13692891
]
Scott Gray commented on OFBIZ-4794:
---
Haven't we made multiple changes in svn to our
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4794?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13692910#comment-13692910
]
Scott Gray commented on OFBIZ-4794:
---
I can't recall what the changes were, but I recall
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4794?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13693384#comment-13693384
]
Scott Gray commented on OFBIZ-4794:
---
bq. Anyway, I can agree about providing an ant
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4794?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13692672#comment-13692672
]
Scott Gray commented on OFBIZ-4794:
---
+1 for a patch (or patches), command line arguments
A set-map operation that replaces this type of thing:
set field=partyRelationshipCtx.partyIdFrom
from-field=userLogin.partyId/
set field=partyRelationshipCtx.partyIdTo from-field=partyId/
set field=partyRelationshipCtx.roleTypeIdFrom value=OWNER/
set
What would the current component be once the screen/form (I assume you're
talking about screens/forms) was included from a different component? Would it
be local to the component it is defined in or local to the component it was
referenced from?
I can't really offer any alternative solutions
for
different customers which should work in the same SAAS multi tenant
environment.
bit more clear now?
Regards, Hans
On 06/17/2013 01:52 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
What would the current component be once the screen/form (I assume you're
talking about screens/forms) was included from a different
Le 17/06/2013 10:10, Scott Gray a écrit :
Thanks Hans.
I guess what I don't understand is why you would rename the OOTB
component? It seems like you're creating a headache for yourself
unnecessarily.
Regards
Scott
On 17/06/2013, at 8:03 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Thanks Scott for you
PM, Scott Gray wrote:
Thanks Hans.
I guess what I don't understand is why you would rename the OOTB component?
It seems like you're creating a headache for yourself unnecessarily.
Regards
Scott
On 17/06/2013, at 8:03 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Thanks Scott for you reply,
perhaps
Not really SaaS once you start heading down that road huh. Personally I'd focus
on designing for the 90% and if necessary, improving the framework to get
customizations for the 10% into the db.
Regards
Scott
On 18/06/2013, at 2:43 AM, Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com wrote:
Do you really
,
Why did you not contribute, are there any drawbacks, apart the small memory
footprint (considering nowadays available memory in modern machines)?
Thanks
Jacques
From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com
It seems largely like a one off effort though right? I mean it's pretty
customers select
different combinations on a user by user basis. That flexibility would
actually let you run a larger set of customers on a single shared
infrastructure rather than forcing you into setting up special case servers
just to allow those overrides.
- Scott Gray wrote
I'm sure this is a useful tool but are we not stretching the scope of the
project a bit too far with support for home grown code generators?
Regards
Scott
On 16/06/2013, at 7:36 PM, adri...@apache.org wrote:
Author: adrianc
Date: Sun Jun 16 07:36:08 2013
New Revision: 1493474
URL:
Please don't comment out code without a comment describing why, either explain
it in a comment or delete it altogether.
Thanks
Scott
On 16/06/2013, at 1:45 AM, jler...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jleroux
Date: Sat Jun 15 13:45:26 2013
New Revision: 1493353
URL:
- the need to
generate thread-safe models from OFBiz XML schemas.
For background, look here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5204
-Adrian
On 6/16/2013 8:47 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
I'm sure this is a useful tool but are we not stretching the scope of the
project a bit too far
for
everybody.
Regards
Scott
On 16/06/2013, at 8:13 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Okay, I will remove it and keep a local copy.
-Adrian
On 6/16/2013 9:09 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
It seems largely like a one off effort though right? I mean it's pretty
rare that we make anything other than minor
FYI, you can also use some of groovy's other collection methods:
// Retrieve all non-promo items that aren't cancelled
context.orderItemListFiltered = orderReadHelper.getOrderItems().findAll { item
-
(item.isPromo == null || item.isPromo == 'N')
!(item.statusId.equals('ITEM_CANCELLED'))
}
are comparing from
and thru dates with now, where now is changing all the time? If we
restricted date filtering, where possible, to date and not time of day,
would that help caching?
Which class doesn't implement equals correctly?
Thanks
Paul Foxworthy
Scott Gray-2 wrote
Actually
+1, I'd also like to hear more about the motivations behind this change.
Thanks
Scott
On 19/03/2013, at 2:13 AM, Paul Foxworthy wrote:
One more...
Is the ProductStore the right place for the new option? Could it be viewed
as a compliance matter required by a TaxAuthority? In other words,
Actually in this case probably not. The query uses the cache and the result
set is likely small so filtering by date in memory should be more efficient,
you can't use the cache and include a date condition because the cached result
would never be hit again. There's also a bug in the date
On 18/01/2013, at 9:10 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 01/17/2013 01:18 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Jan 17, 2013, at 8:11 PM, Ean Schuessler wrote:
think Adam's point was that someone could synthesize a vote from you (or,
more importantly a vote from a mostly dormant member like Adam) and get
I think Jacques tends to use demand where most would use request, just a
language issue.
Regards
Scott
On 14/12/2012, at 9:36 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Please don't do this.
There was no demand - Adam and I suggested a better way to do things, and
this is not a better way. There is no need
wrote:
Yes, the Content application supports localization, but an external Wiki (or
some other Help source) might not.
-Adrian
Quoting Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com:
That would work but isn't the content component supposed to support
localization itself?
In regards to being
On 7/12/2012, at 12:43 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Dec 6, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Olivier Heintz wrote:
If I correctly understand the commiter groups roles, it's to coordinate,
animate and help the community to enhance (technically, functions,
quality, ...) the project, not to force or
.
OFBiz OOTB could have some Help screens available in the Content component,
but if a user wanted to use some other method, all they would need to do is
change the Help URLs in the UI label files (to point to an internal Wiki for
example).
-Adrian
Quoting Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com
Jacques
From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com
It's been all of 3 days since I asked you to wait for a thorough review,
has that happened yet or will you just keep asking
until no one can be bothered asking you to wait any longer? Patience is a
virtue Jacques, the project has gone
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4949?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13500140#comment-13500140
]
Scott Gray commented on OFBIZ-4949:
---
UEL could be a good idea but it's a separate
It's been all of 3 days since I asked you to wait for a thorough review, has
that happened yet or will you just keep asking until no one can be bothered
asking you to wait any longer? Patience is a virtue Jacques, the project has
gone over 10 years without this feature and I don't think a few
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4949?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13500173#comment-13500173
]
Scott Gray commented on OFBIZ-4949:
---
My main concern with #1 and #2 was decreased
+1
Regards
Scott
On 13/11/2012, at 11:25 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
This is the vote thread to approve the first release for the 11.04 branch.
This new release, Apache OFBiz 11.04.01 (major release number: 11.04;
minor release number: 01) is the first release of the 11.04 series and
Hi Olivier,
Where can I find some information about this effort? i.e. goals, design,
implementation etc.
I assume it was discussed or documented somewhere at some point.
Thanks
Scott
On 14/11/2012, at 11:09 PM, Olivier Heintz wrote:
Hi,
are you ok with this proposition ?
Erwan is
...)
What do you think?
Thanks
Jacques
From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com
Hi Olivier,
Where can I find some information about this effort? i.e. goals, design,
implementation etc.
I assume it was discussed or documented somewhere at some point.
Thanks
Scott
On 14/11
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4274?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13497656#comment-13497656
]
Scott Gray commented on OFBIZ-4274:
---
I've only looked at rest-conf.xml at this stage
Nothing was ever done, the rollbacks currently occur per test-suite as always.
Regards
Scott
On 10/11/2012, at 9:12 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Sorry to resurrect this old post, but what is the status on this?
Thanks
Jacques
From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com
We've had
Hi Adrian,
This type of pattern is pretty heavily used throughout the codebase isn't it?
While updating a status history table might not be the best use of it, it does
still serve as an example of that pattern. Couldn't it be fixed by including
an is-not-empty condition?
Thanks
Scott
On
a better job of checking status changes.
I agree the pattern is used heavily throughout the codebase, but that doesn't
make it a good pattern.
-Adrian
On 10/23/2012 10:23 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
Hi Adrian,
This type of pattern is pretty heavily used throughout the codebase isn't
On 1/10/2012, at 7:14 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
I mentioned this once before as part of another discussion, but I'm creating
a new discussion so it can receive the attention it deserves.
The Data Model Resource Book describes entity subtypes. OFBiz implements
entity subtypes by adding a
related but we also use Tuckey. So yes it's about Servlets
Jacques
From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com
I'm equally confused and the jira hasn't helped much. Could someone define
an external request in controllers for me?
Typically if you want flexible request handling
I'm equally confused and the jira hasn't helped much. Could someone define an
external request in controllers for me?
Typically if you want flexible request handling on the control path you use the
default-request/ element to point to a uri that will handle the request
within an event.
I'm
Does this even pass a run-install? I think some fin account and gc products
define data using this field.
Regards
Scott
On 31/08/2012, at 10:44 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Why can't we use both? What happens to users who are using the serviceName
field? Is there a migration service?
-Adrian
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5004?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13439413#comment-13439413
]
Scott Gray commented on OFBIZ-5004:
---
Hey Christoph,
Interesting point
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5004?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13439208#comment-13439208
]
Scott Gray commented on OFBIZ-5004:
---
The warnings are not by any means pointless
Thanks Adrian. I wonder when we'd be safe to remove those checks altogether.
Regards
Scott
On 15/08/2012, at 6:25 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Understood. I will revert the two methods.
-Adrian
On 8/14/2012 11:48 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
Taking getBigDecimal for example, where 99.999
Hi Adrian,
Are you sure those are optimizations? For getBigDecimal and getDouble I think
almost every call would cause the exception to be thrown, is that actually more
efficient than an instanceof check? I know both are expensive but I don't know
which is more so.
Thanks
Scott
On
, in the case where
instanceof evaluates to true, there will be two object type tests -
instanceof and the cast. The modification guarantees there will be only one
object type test.
I've seen this optimization used elsewhere, but I haven't actually measured
it.
-Adrian
Quoting Scott Gray
Hi Adrian,
I have a feeling that using a direct update to queue jobs was done on purpose
to avoid duplication when multiple instances are polling for jobs in the same
pool. The problem with doing a select then update is the following:
1. Instance A uses SELECT to gather the jobs to queue,
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4958?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13429979#comment-13429979
]
Scott Gray commented on OFBIZ-4958:
---
Hi Sumit,
I don't mind either way, either disable
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4958?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13429106#comment-13429106
]
Scott Gray commented on OFBIZ-4958:
---
Please keep the default to something less
(trying to find a neutral point to reply to)
If it were me, I would probably keep JobInterview and make it a specialization
of WorkEffort, much like Person and PartyGroup are to Party. While an
interview certainly requires communication, I think in terms of the company
being modeled it's
the actual
ServiceDispatcher, so it is left to the LocalDispatcher to keep a
DispatchContext which among other things keeps a reference to the
applications classloader.
Hope I clarified
Jacques
From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com
No offense but it sounds to me like you're using
No offense but it sounds to me like you're using a hack in place of a proper
solution and are now concerned that it might go away? Can you provide a use
case example for where a service might need to know which webapp it was called
from? Service data is supposed to be supplied via the
Hi Hans,
Why not just always get the webSiteId from WebSiteWorker instead of passing it
through the form in a hidden parameter?
Thanks
Scott
On 24/07/2012, at 9:00 PM, hans...@apache.org wrote:
Author: hansbak
Date: Tue Jul 24 09:00:06 2012
New Revision: 1364942
URL:
to provide a link to the current
site in the email which is sent.Or do I not understand your suggestion?
please elaborate...
Regards,
Hans
On 07/24/2012 04:28 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
Hi Hans,
Why not just always get the webSiteId from WebSiteWorker instead of passing
it through
On 18/07/2012, at 8:37 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 7/18/2012 9:02 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com
I keep finding unnecessary calls to UtilValidate.isEmpty in the project. It
seems they were added in a global SR and committed in
revision 883549.
On 18/07/2012, at 8:09 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 7/17/2012 2:47 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Jul 16, 2012, at 11:50 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
The next steps for the future will be to move out of the framework the
folders in the images application that are specific to applications
It all comes back to a general misunderstanding of the difference between the
user and dev lists.
The user list is for people who are using OFBiz as a business user or
developing customized applications. When these types of people have a
question, the user list is definitely appropriate.
yourself above it.
2012/7/16 Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com
It all comes back to a general misunderstanding of the difference between
the user and dev lists.
The user list is for people who are using OFBiz as a business user or
developing customized applications. When
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4949?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13407718#comment-13407718
]
Scott Gray commented on OFBIZ-4949:
---
Currently if you set an attribute with an empty
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4941?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13407720#comment-13407720
]
Scott Gray commented on OFBIZ-4941:
---
Ivy or not I don't think you can have the system
Hi Adrian,
Not sure if this is the best place for it but I noticed today that call-service
handles service errors a bit differently from the service engine itself.
In ServiceDispatcher.runSync(), the service returned an error if:
Please ignore, I was completely wrong :-)
Regards
Scott
On 3/07/2012, at 11:37 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
Hi Adrian,
Not sure if this is the best place for it but I noticed today that
call-service handles service errors a bit differently from the service engine
itself
it is not desirable for
POST parameters to be converted to GET parameters and
thus be recorded in logs.
Sorry for the long post, seems that we need to get into details
Jacques
From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com
Right, so they recommend using 301 for a permanent redirect but like
I think most of our redirects OOTB are used as a Post/Redirect/Get pattern for
which 303 is best on HTTP 1.1 or 302 on HTTP 1.0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post/Redirect/Get
Do you have a reference for your SEO best practices? Or alternatively do you
have an example of where a 301 redirect
If I had to guess I would think your proposition would be reversed:
PAY_INFO should grant limited access to ACCOUNTING functionality.
On 26/06/2012, at 12:01 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Yes Jacopo, I know all that, but the question is as I wrote:
The question here is do you really want to allow
/answer.py?hl=enanswer=93633
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=enanswer=40132
http://searchengineland.com/images/301-302-explained.gif
HTH
Jacques
From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com
I think most of our redirects OOTB are used as a Post/Redirect/Get pattern
, Adrian Crum wrote:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ofbiz-dev/201006.mbox/%3c2640abb5-65b1-4cb0-b360-2a97eac2e...@me.com%3E
-Adrian
On 5/31/2012 2:08 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
Perhaps my memory is failing but haven't you raised this topic before?
What was the outcome back then?
I
Pierre, you'll need to do a better job of articulating your opinion if you want
a committer to take it into account. Only PMC members can request a revert
with little explanation (although that rarely happens, if ever).
Regards
Scott
On 31/05/2012, at 8:13 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
Please
Hi Hans,
I'm sorry but could you go into a little more detail about the problem and
proposal? I'm not sure I understand well enough to even know what questions to
ask.
What would it mean to define a new entity resource reader-name? As far as I
understand they aren't actually defined
of rules apply
to both committers and other community members.
3. you tend to make up the rules as you see fit.
2012/5/31 Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com
Pierre, you'll need to do a better job of articulating your opinion if you
want a committer to take it into account. Only PMC
tenant, load that data
as part of a custom component in hot-deploy via the component:// notation in
the ofbiz-component.xml file as seeddata.
hopefully explained a bit better this time.
Regards,
Hans
On 05/31/2012 03:50 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
Hi Hans,
I'm sorry but could you go
The only problem there would be that the information would need to be known
when the record was created since fromDate forms part of the primary key. It's
entirely possible that the user could create the contact mech themselves via
the ecommerce app and then later an external service runs to
401 - 500 of 2742 matches
Mail list logo
