Re: Update our HTTP headers
Hi Jacques, I'm happy to get rid of X-UA-Compatible. Cheers Paul Foxworthy On 18 May 2018 at 23:47, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Hi, > > At https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6766 I have attached a > minor OFBIZ-6766-UtilHttp.java.patch for updating our HTTP headers > > I think it's OK to commit, but before I'd like to know if we really want > to keep x-ua-compatible in several *.html files. > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26346917/why-use-x-ua- > compatible-ie-edge-anymore > > I ever wonder who uses Windows nowadays (kidding ;)) > > Jacques > > -- Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd PO Box 2773 Cheltenham Vic 3192 Australia Phone: +61 3 9585 6788 Web: http://www.coherentsoftware.com.au/ Email: i...@coherentsoftware.com.au
Re: Document association with FixedAssets
Thanks for the pointers Mr. Rishi. Regds mallah. On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 7:18 PM, Rishi Solanki wrote: > Rajesh, > > You may consider the FixedAsset.instanceOfProductId, > FixedAsset.acquireOrderId, and FixedAsset.partyId. And ProductContent, > OrderContent and PartyContent based on the purpose of content. > With respect to your shared documents it seems to be go with > ProductContent. May be with some specific type. > > > Rishi Solanki > Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development > HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd. > Direct: +91-9893287847 > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com > www.hotwax.co > > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Rajesh Mallah > wrote: > > > Also will such feature be of generic usage ? > > > > -- Ccing/Moving to Dev. > > > > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Rajesh Mallah > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks Deepak . > > > > > > and can extend data > > >> model to associate FixedAsset with Content. > > >> > > > > > > You mean adding a new Relation into the OFBiz system ? > > > In case you meant that shall i open a JIRA ? > > > > > > Also can you point me to a past commit or documentation that > > > would help me understand the protocols involved in making > > > such a change. > > > > > > regds > > > mallah. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Deepak Dixit > > > > com> wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Rajes, > > >> > > >> You can use Content data model to manage the documents, and can extend > > >> data > > >> model to associate FixedAsset with Content. > > >> > > >> Thanks & Regards > > >> -- > > >> Deepak Dixit > > >> www.hotwax.co > > >> > > >> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Rajesh Mallah < > mallah.raj...@gmail.com > > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hello List , > > >> > > > >> > I was exploring the FixedAssets Feature in OFBiz . > > >> > I found it quite usable for my use case. Only thing i am missing > > >> > at this moment is associating documents with FixedAssets. > > >> > > > >> > Eg in case of a Vehicle type FixedAsset the documents can be > > >> > > > >> > (1) Insurance Docs (Multipage) > > >> > (2) Pollution Certificate > > >> > (3) Transport Permit by State / Central Govt. > > >> > > > >> > I plan to store the docs in an external object store eg(AWS S3) > > >> > and store the urls of the docs in OFBiz. > > >> > > > >> > Any ideas how it can be accomplished in current features > > >> > of OFBiz. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Regds > > >> > Mallah. > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
Re: svn commit: r1831567 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/base/src/main/java/META-INF/
+1, I think a new Jira fits.. Jacques Le 18/05/2018 à 14:56, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit : I agree Michael, maybe we should rewrite the test or remove it all together. I just put the file there to make the test work but I also find it ugly. On Fri, May 18, 2018, 2:09 PM Michael Brohl wrote: Hi Nicolas, Taher, thanks for reporting. It still looks ugly to have this META-INF directory but I've reverted the commit. Sorry for the noise, Michael Am 17.05.18 um 10:36 schrieb Taher Alkhateeb: If I remember correctly I think I put it there for this exact reason. It used to be declared inside ant scripts and when we moved to gradle I thought it looked ugly in the script so I moved it out as a declared service. On Thu, May 17, 2018, 11:34 AM Nicolas Malin wrote: Hello Michael, This commit break base tests : ~/workspace/apache-svn/ofbiz-trunk-test poveglia$ svn up -r1831566 poveglia$ ./gradlew "ofbiz --test component=base --test suitename=basetests" [...] BUILD SUCCESSFUL in 2m 7s poveglia$ svn up -r1831567 Mise à jour de '.' : Dframework/base/src/main/java/META-INF Actualisé à la révision 1831567. ~/workspace/apache-svn/ofbiz-trunk-test poveglia$ ./gradlew "ofbiz --test component=base --test suitename=basetests"B BUILD FAILED in 57s with in test result log : classname="org.apache.ofbiz.base.util.test.UtilObjectTests" name="testGetObjectFromFactory" time="0.01"> type="java.lang.ClassNotFoundException">java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: java.lang.Class at org.apache.ofbiz.base.util.UtilObject.getObjectFromFactory(UtilObject.java:205)... Can you have the time to check or do you want some help to fix this issue ? Nicolas On 14/05/2018 15:34, mbr...@apache.org wrote: Author: mbrohl Date: Mon May 14 13:34:03 2018 New Revision: 1831567 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1831567&view=rev Log: Fixed: Removed unnecessary class and folders. Removed: ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/base/src/main/java/META-INF/
Re: Document association with FixedAssets
Rajesh, You may consider the FixedAsset.instanceOfProductId, FixedAsset.acquireOrderId, and FixedAsset.partyId. And ProductContent, OrderContent and PartyContent based on the purpose of content. With respect to your shared documents it seems to be go with ProductContent. May be with some specific type. Rishi Solanki Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd. Direct: +91-9893287847 http://www.hotwaxsystems.com www.hotwax.co On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Rajesh Mallah wrote: > Also will such feature be of generic usage ? > > -- Ccing/Moving to Dev. > > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Rajesh Mallah > wrote: > > > Thanks Deepak . > > > > and can extend data > >> model to associate FixedAsset with Content. > >> > > > > You mean adding a new Relation into the OFBiz system ? > > In case you meant that shall i open a JIRA ? > > > > Also can you point me to a past commit or documentation that > > would help me understand the protocols involved in making > > such a change. > > > > regds > > mallah. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Deepak Dixit > > com> wrote: > > > >> Hi Rajes, > >> > >> You can use Content data model to manage the documents, and can extend > >> data > >> model to associate FixedAsset with Content. > >> > >> Thanks & Regards > >> -- > >> Deepak Dixit > >> www.hotwax.co > >> > >> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Rajesh Mallah > > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Hello List , > >> > > >> > I was exploring the FixedAssets Feature in OFBiz . > >> > I found it quite usable for my use case. Only thing i am missing > >> > at this moment is associating documents with FixedAssets. > >> > > >> > Eg in case of a Vehicle type FixedAsset the documents can be > >> > > >> > (1) Insurance Docs (Multipage) > >> > (2) Pollution Certificate > >> > (3) Transport Permit by State / Central Govt. > >> > > >> > I plan to store the docs in an external object store eg(AWS S3) > >> > and store the urls of the docs in OFBiz. > >> > > >> > Any ideas how it can be accomplished in current features > >> > of OFBiz. > >> > > >> > > >> > Regds > >> > Mallah. > >> > > >> > > > > >
Update our HTTP headers
Hi, At https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6766 I have attached a minor OFBIZ-6766-UtilHttp.java.patch for updating our HTTP headers I think it's OK to commit, but before I'd like to know if we really want to keep x-ua-compatible in several *.html files. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26346917/why-use-x-ua-compatible-ie-edge-anymore I ever wonder who uses Windows nowadays (kidding ;)) Jacques
Re: svn commit: r1831567 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/base/src/main/java/META-INF/
I agree Michael, maybe we should rewrite the test or remove it all together. I just put the file there to make the test work but I also find it ugly. On Fri, May 18, 2018, 2:09 PM Michael Brohl wrote: > Hi Nicolas, Taher, > > thanks for reporting. It still looks ugly to have this META-INF > directory but I've reverted the commit. > > Sorry for the noise, > > Michael > > > Am 17.05.18 um 10:36 schrieb Taher Alkhateeb: > > If I remember correctly I think I put it there for this exact reason. It > > used to be declared inside ant scripts and when we moved to gradle I > > thought it looked ugly in the script so I moved it out as a declared > > service. > > > > On Thu, May 17, 2018, 11:34 AM Nicolas Malin > > wrote: > > > >> Hello Michael, > >> > >> This commit break base tests : > >> > >> ~/workspace/apache-svn/ofbiz-trunk-test > >> > >> poveglia$ svn up -r1831566 > >> > >> poveglia$ ./gradlew "ofbiz --test component=base --test > >> suitename=basetests" > >> > >> [...] > >> > >> BUILD SUCCESSFUL in 2m 7s > >> > >> poveglia$ svn up -r1831567 > >> > >> Mise à jour de '.' : > >> > >> Dframework/base/src/main/java/META-INF > >> > >> Actualisé à la révision 1831567. > >> > >> ~/workspace/apache-svn/ofbiz-trunk-test > >> > >> poveglia$ ./gradlew "ofbiz --test component=base --test > >> suitename=basetests"B > >> > >> BUILD FAILED in 57s > >> > >> > >> with in test result log : > >> > >> classname="org.apache.ofbiz.base.util.test.UtilObjectTests" > >> name="testGetObjectFromFactory" time="0.01"> > >> > >>>> > type="java.lang.ClassNotFoundException">java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: > >> java.lang.Class > >> > >> at > >> > org.apache.ofbiz.base.util.UtilObject.getObjectFromFactory(UtilObject.java:205)... > >> > >> > >> > >> Can you have the time to check or do you want some help to fix this > issue ? > >> Nicolas > >> > >> On 14/05/2018 15:34, mbr...@apache.org wrote: > >>> Author: mbrohl > >>> Date: Mon May 14 13:34:03 2018 > >>> New Revision: 1831567 > >>> > >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1831567&view=rev > >>> Log: > >>> Fixed: Removed unnecessary class and folders. > >>> > >>> Removed: > >>> > ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/base/src/main/java/META-INF/ > >>> > >>> > >> > > >
Re: svn commit: r1831567 - /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/base/src/main/java/META-INF/
Hi Nicolas, Taher, thanks for reporting. It still looks ugly to have this META-INF directory but I've reverted the commit. Sorry for the noise, Michael Am 17.05.18 um 10:36 schrieb Taher Alkhateeb: If I remember correctly I think I put it there for this exact reason. It used to be declared inside ant scripts and when we moved to gradle I thought it looked ugly in the script so I moved it out as a declared service. On Thu, May 17, 2018, 11:34 AM Nicolas Malin wrote: Hello Michael, This commit break base tests : ~/workspace/apache-svn/ofbiz-trunk-test poveglia$ svn up -r1831566 poveglia$ ./gradlew "ofbiz --test component=base --test suitename=basetests" [...] BUILD SUCCESSFUL in 2m 7s poveglia$ svn up -r1831567 Mise à jour de '.' : Dframework/base/src/main/java/META-INF Actualisé à la révision 1831567. ~/workspace/apache-svn/ofbiz-trunk-test poveglia$ ./gradlew "ofbiz --test component=base --test suitename=basetests"B BUILD FAILED in 57s with in test result log : java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: java.lang.Class at org.apache.ofbiz.base.util.UtilObject.getObjectFromFactory(UtilObject.java:205)... Can you have the time to check or do you want some help to fix this issue ? Nicolas On 14/05/2018 15:34, mbr...@apache.org wrote: Author: mbrohl Date: Mon May 14 13:34:03 2018 New Revision: 1831567 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1831567&view=rev Log: Fixed: Removed unnecessary class and folders. Removed: ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/framework/base/src/main/java/META-INF/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [Discussion] Introduction of Bootstrap and Vue.js
Hi,
+1 For Jacques, Scot & Rajesh’s View Point.
> "I feel most of the modern UI frameworks consume JSON and
> if we have yet another adapter to the rich catalog of WebServices
> ( in addition to XML/RPC and SOAP) it shall benefit both UI developers
> and
> system integrators / framework users."
This is been discussed in few other threads but this is a issue that is long
due. And would love to see the community to finally address this.
@Taher: Webservice to consume JSON would be the most beneficial and desired
enhancement to the framework.
Thx & Rgds,
Pratiek
> On 17-May-2018, at 9:27 PM, Rajesh Mallah wrote:
>
> Hi List ,
>
> The default UI of OFBiz does look aged but I feel it does a great job
> of being productive. As discussed before also ERP being a serious
> backroom software and mostly operated by staff to whom all the bells
> and whistles of modern frameworks may not make any difference.
>
> But since adoption of OFBiz to enterprises is dependent on decision makers/
> influencer who may not even know the nuances of UI and its relation to
> productivity it is important to look modern and shiny and which is the
> reason of
> this thread by Mr. Taher.
>
>
> Hence IMHO its good and required for OFBiz.
>
> At the same time we need to increase the comfort level of system integrators
> and people who use ofbiz as a framework.
>
> I feel most of the modern UI frameworks consume JSON and
> if we have yet another adapter to the rich catalog of WebServices
> ( in addition to XML/RPC and SOAP) it shall benefit both UI developers
> and
> system integrators / framework users.
>
> I also humbly feel while this modernization is done, the existing interface
> should
> not be done away with as people develop very strange and innovative comfort
> zones with software UIs which are difficult to anticipate by developers.
>
> my 2cents.
>
>
> regds
> mallah.
>
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Scott, Taher,
>>
>> I think you are both right, and maybe because you are mostly working for 2
>> different markets or have different types of clients.
>>
>> Anyway, what I mean is:
>>
>> 1. Form widgets are not of much use when you have to deploy a new UI for
>> an ecommerce or alike project (frontend).
>> 2. They are very useful when you are working on a backend project (ie ERP
>> part) where people don't care much about bells and whistle (even if that's
>> less and less happening) but want a fast ROI ("time-to-market reasons"
>> as said Taher)
>>
>> I don't know if Mathieu will get enough time to succeed on his project.
>> But obviously if we had the possibility to generate RESTful web services
>> from OFBiz services, with the export attribute like for SOAP and RMI, then
>> Scott's idea would be fulfilled and that would help much, not only in the
>> UI area of course.
>>
>> Now for widgets, the form part could maybe slowly replaced by using tools
>> like Bootstrap and Vue.js. Or the new flavor in some years and that must be
>> very seriously taken into account to not have to redo it again, in few
>> years...
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 15/05/2018 à 12:18, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
>>
>>> Ahhh, I understand clearly now. Thank you!
>>>
>>> So more or less, the heart of your message as I understand it is that
>>> we should decouple the rendering of the user interface from data
>>> fetching and manipulation. This makes perfect sense and is a good
>>> strategy.
>>>
>>> A bit contrary to your experience though, most of our work relies
>>> heavily on the widget system for time-to-market reasons. It has been
>>> immensely beneficial to get something out the door quickly. However,
>>> of course the system falls short when it comes to heavy customizations
>>> or the need to integrate with other systems.
>>>
>>> So I would suggest that perhaps your comment in this thread that
>>> "having prebuilt APIs would have reduced the workload" is applicable
>>> in case of custom work. Otherwise, perhaps the faster route is through
>>> the widget system. Therefore I think it is reasonable to apply both
>>> strategies: 1) use good modern UI tools 2) build powerful flexible web
>>> APIs. But for standard screens, I see no reason to use web service
>>> calls instead of ... tags to do quick and obvious
>>> things unless perhaps you make the web API call part of the widget
>>> system itself (also a good idea!)
>>>
>>> Anyway, you're making me think more seriously of pushing forward the
>>> implementation of web services, but I think introducing these
>>> frameworks is going to be beneficial either way.
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Scott Gray
>>> wrote:
>>>
Hi Taher,
I'm simply saying that if we were to provide a complete suite web APIs to
access the full functionality of ofbiz, then the project's choice of UI
technology no longer matters so much in the grand scheme of things. No
one
would
