Re: [DISCUSSION] How far are willing to go with diluting the Party component to be diluted with business domain specific functions

+1. Rishi Solanki Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd. Direct: +91-9893287847 http://www.hotwaxsystems.com www.hotwax.co On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > Le 25/11/2017 à 21:31, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit : > >>

Re: [Proposal] Extend facility entity

Hi Pierre, The "primary" pattern is often used such in productCategory or productStore entity. It can simplify acces for simple use. Thanks Pierre G On 25/11/2017 22:26, Pierre Smits wrote: Why would a new field called primaryCalendarId be required when this could be resolved through you p

Re: OFBiz Version Info

For whom is this intended? For the contributors of this project? Code contributors check out (and work with) the code from the official repo's (ASF SVN/Github git) and work with only with revisions in their IDE of choice. And our other contributors (document maintainers) relate more to Releases. F

Re: [DISCUSSION] How far are willing to go with diluting the Party component to be diluted with business domain specific functions

Le 25/11/2017 à 21:31, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit : With that being said, I think the party component is relatively stable and not getting constantly diluted. But yeah maybe it's carrying too much probably for historical reasons. Hi Pierre, Taher, I agree with both of you. I just wanted to say tha

Re: [Proposal] Extend facility entity

Why would a new field called primaryCalendarId be required when this could be resolved through you proposed FacilityCalendar entity? If there is only one it is the primary. And if multiple are required then one can have facilityCalendarPurposeId = primary/default/whatever-your-Definition-for-that-i

Re: [Proposal] Extend facility entity

Can we set a primaryCalendarId field on Facility entity and add a join entity FacilityCalendar with fields facilityId, caldendarId, facilityCalendarPurposeId, description for complex use ? Pierre On 25/11/2017 19:18, Pierre Smits wrote: Hi Jacques, All, Consider following scenarios: 1.

Re: [DISCUSSION] How far are willing to go with diluting the Party component to be diluted with business domain specific functions

I agree the mentioned menu items should be removed from the party component and moved to the appropriate components. I also agree that we shouldn't add domain-specific behavior to the generic party component. So +1 for moving them. There is also more stuff that perhaps should be moved away. For ex

[DISCUSSION] How far are willing to go with diluting the Party component to be diluted with business domain specific functions

While going through some unread JIRA notification I came across: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-9896, and I took a peek at the starting point: https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/main I find it a bit curious that we have in the party menu: 1. Create Employee 2.

Re: [Proposal] Extend facility entity

Hi Jacques, All, Consider following scenarios: 1. A business with a facility in a city center, where city government has placed restrictions on the access of the city center for trucks, and other set of restrictions of opening hours for customers: 1. a calendar for suppliers and ot

Re: [Proposal] Extend facility entity

Hi Pierre, Actually I was answering to Pierre Gaudin :) More than one calendar for a facility? Do you have an example? Jacques Le 25/11/2017 à 15:53, Pierre Smits a écrit : Hey Jacques, You're welcome. {quote} Anyway, so Vaibhav, I think we can now put directly in Facility {quote} Are yo

Re: [Proposal] Extend facility entity

Hey Jacques, You're welcome. {quote} Anyway, so Vaibhav, I think we can now put directly in Facility {quote} Are you sure? Is there no scenario possible where a facility would need to apply more than 1 calendar? Best regards, Pierre Smits ORRTIZ.COM OFBiz based soluti

Re: [Proposal] Extend facility entity

Thanks for the info Pierre, Exactly the right answer! I thought there was something in workeffort data model, I know less manufacturing :) BTW, I wonder why TechDataCalendar is in manufacturing rather than in workeffort where IMO it would better fit since it's more general there. Anyway, so

Re: [Proposal] Extend facility entity

Hi, Recently we had to store opening and closing hours for stores. To do so we have linked techDataCalendar with facility             Thanks Pierre On 25/11/2017 11:53, Michael Brohl wrote: +1 for a timetable entity and linking it to facility This will give us much more flexibility

Re: [Proposal] Extend facility entity

Hi All, The facility entity should not have the openedDate and closedDate fields, as these: 1. can't be enough for all the moments a facility can be open or closed; 2. not in line with startDate and thruDate fields (datetime type) used throughout numerous other entities to determine the

Re: [Proposal] Extend facility entity

+1 for a timetable entity and linking it to facility This will give us much more flexibility and avoids adding more and more fields to the facility table. Thanks, Michael Am 25.11.17 um 11:39 schrieb Jacques Le Roux: Hi Vaibhav, That sounds reasonable to me. I notably like this feature wh

Re: [Proposal] Extend facility entity

Hi Vaibhav, That sounds reasonable to me. I notably like this feature when Googling for a *physical* store to go buying things. Then you should maybe consider having a new Timetable Entity and link it from Facility. I had a look at what already exists in the Data Model, notably Timesheet and

[Proposal] Extend facility entity

Hello all, *Facility* entity has attributes for *openedDate* and *closedDate* which specify that facility opening date and closing date if the facility is closed i.e. not in-use. All facilities are not open on all weekdays. We can have an attribute to record this. A retail store is also a facili

Re: [Proposal] - Leverage the CMS capability for Product Store's Email

Thanks Nicolas :) Hello team, Added comment related to steps planning for this improvement. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3894?focusedCommentId=16265653&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-16265653 Thanks again everyone for your kind input

Re: OFBiz Version Info

+1 for having the version info. Taher's proposal looks reasonable to me. - Best Regards, Swapnil M Mane On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: > I don't think it's necessary to contain the version information, but I > don't mind it if people find it helpful. With that being s

Re: OFBiz Version Info

I don't think it's necessary to contain the version information, but I don't mind it if people find it helpful. With that being said, I suggest to avoid putting this information in README.md and also to avoid doing this manually. It becomes tedious and human error prone. My suggestion instead (if

Re: OFBiz Version Info

I think here Devanshu talking about release that we do in zip. http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.lua/ofbiz/apache-ofbiz-16.11.03.zip Thanks & Regards -- Deepak Dixit www.hotwaxsystems.com www.hotwax.co On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > Hi D

Re: OFBiz Version Info

Hi Devanshu, James, To see something locally on the ERP pages footer you need to run "gradlew svnInfo" before Jacques Le 25/11/2017 à 07:14, James Yong a écrit : Hi Devanshu, Have you looked at the web page’s footer? Regards, James Yong On 2017-11-25 13:46, Devanshu Vyas wrote: Hello D

Re: [PROPOSAL] Extend returnId and shipmentId in FinAccountTrans entity

Hello All, Here is a link to ticket OFBIZ-9998 raised on JIRA. Thanks & Regards Vaibhav Jain Hotwax Systems, vaibhav.j...@hotwaxsystems.com On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Suraj Khurana < suraj.khur...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > Thanks, Pau

Re: [Proposal] - Leverage the CMS capability for Product Store's Email

Hello Swapnil, Le 25/11/2017 à 09:03, Swapnil Mane a écrit : Thanks, Nicolas and everyone for sharing your thoughts. The model we discussed in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3894 is making perfect sense to me. I guess, we should proceed in small steps to implement this. Nice to lea

Re: [Proposal] - Leverage the CMS capability for Product Store's Email

Thanks, Nicolas and everyone for sharing your thoughts. The model we discussed in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3894 is making perfect sense to me. I guess, we should proceed in small steps to implement this. @Nicolas, the patch provided by you will be really helpful. P.S. Apologi