em.
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).
T
ld consider rename it, but that's
>>>
>>> minor
>>>>
>>>> in comparison with the second flaw
>>>> 2. The second flaw is that we kept the business properties files. To
>>>> avoid duplication and confusion all the business properties s
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 <
https://markmail.org/message/opldepaevls3y3ob> for business properties
to
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 t
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 <
https://markmail.org/message/opldepaevls3y3ob> for business properties to
separate thos
e 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 sugges
iscussed 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
If there's an ongoing discussion on the dev list then I don't think it's a
good idea to try to move it to jira until there's some consensus on the
path forward.
Regards
Scott
On 4 April 2018 at 10:14, Taher Alkhateeb
wrote:
> I am a little lost in this JIRA and
I am a little lost in this JIRA and cannot follow the discussion. Can
you please point to what you want to review with others exactly?
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Jacques Le Roux
wrote:
> Le 03/04/2018 à 09:16, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>
>> I suggest to
Le 03/04/2018 à 09:16, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
I suggest to continue the discussion at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7112 where I have completed my proposition
Since there were some more comments after is al link to my comment with my
completed my proposition
I suggest to continue the discussion at
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7112 where I have completed my
proposition
Jacques
Le 18/02/2018 à 13:37, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
Michael,
Actually this idea of multitenant and multitenant-initial readers came to me after your
Michael,
Actually this idea of multitenant and multitenant-initial readers came to me after your proposition of commenting out the load of
CommonSystemPropertyData.xml. This idea is easy and safe to implement. It's only a matter of changing the data and no code change is needed (I
consider
I agree, the two serve entirely different purposes. Multi tenancy
simply means different databases sharing the same code base.
If any differences in configuration are substantial enough, then this
is when you consider two or more instances instead of multi-tenancy. I
don't favor multi-tenancy
Hi Jacques,
I think the SystemProperty feature should not be tight together with the
multi tenant terminology. It is usable without it and therefore should
have it's own configuration. It would just add more confusion to users.
Regards,
Michael
Am 18.02.18 um 08:08 schrieb Jacques Le
Thanks Michael,
Taher's reluctance pushed me to think about another solution. I add the same
thought than you but with a different solution.
We could have a multitenant and multitenant-initial readers, like we have seed
and seed-initial
Like ext readers , it would not be included in loadAll.
I don't think that this is the right way to go.
The original problem is that we have some example SystemProperty data
which is loaded automatically when you setup OFBiz in the documented
way. This leads to confusion when someone changes the file properties
for e.g. the mail transport
Le 16/02/2018 à 18:18, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
That could be probably an incredibly dangerous and complexity-inudcing
idea. Imagine what you are suggesting, a massive state machine, implied and
not explicit (a massive global collection of variables).
Are you thinking about the properties
That could be probably an incredibly dangerous and complexity-inudcing
idea. Imagine what you are suggesting, a massive state machine, implied and
not explicit (a massive global collection of variables).
In my opinion explicit is always better than implicit and we should strive
to actually reduce
The more I think about it, the more I believe the ultimate solution is to remove all properties in favour of SystemProperties. And to no longer use
properties but only SystemProperties.
This entails to
1. completely implements EntityUtilProperties
2. deprecate UtilProperties
3. replace all
19 matches
Mail list logo