Business case:
An email is received requesting more information about certain services
where the originator could be interested in.
The support person receives the email and creates an opportunity in SFA
for the sales people.
Problem:
currently it is not possible to have a link between
- WorkEffort - CommunicationEventWorkEffort.
The business case could be redescribed as:
- Email Received (CommunicationEvent)
- WorkEffort created to handle the communication
- Communication deemed to be a sales opportunity and record is created
Regards
Scott
On 15/09/2011, at 4:13 PM, Hans
Scott
On 15/09/2011, at 6:10 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Sure I am all in favor to use the existing datamodel, this means however
that every communication event will have a workeffort connected to it
because somebody has to handle it? sounds a it bureaucratic?,
then as a result
you much more flexibility in the future.
Regards
Scott
On 15/09/2011, at 7:00 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
I do not agree, i want to list all commevents on an opportunity which
gets now too difficul
Hans
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 18:19 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
Not necessarily every
On 15/09/2011, at 7:33 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
then we have to agree to disagree?
Ok my last question, you are going to block this?'
cannot spend too much time on this...
Regards,
Hans
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 19:08 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
It really doesn't seem very
We will have a look at this Ruth, it is specific from the blog though,
look at the policies at the bottom of the screen, there it works,
Regards,
Hans
--
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Alternative ofbiz website: http://www.ofbiz.info
http://www.antwebsystems.com : Quality
I see Jacques is working on your issue. The changes we made are for the
specific product type only, so i do not expect a conflict here.
Regards,
Hans
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 19:24 -0700, Paul Foxworthy wrote:
Hi Hans,
If you're working in the ItemIssuance area, you might want to look at
valuable comment...will look into it.
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 22:14 +1200, Scott Gray wrote:
Hi Hans,
IMO it would probably be more robust to let the service execute and then
check who the owner of the inventoryItem is before creating the transactions
instead of checking the productTypeId.
That is fine with me as long as by default there is no active override
in any web.xml
Regards,
Hans
On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 01:52 +0100, Adrian Crum wrote:
Let's see if we can bring this to a happy ending.
If the widget.verbose setting in the properties file is false, then it
overrides any
that in the trunk there is no override of widget.verbose in any web.xml.
Hans
On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 02:01 +0100, Adrian Crum wrote:
I still don't know what that means. Could you be more specific please?
-Adrian
On 9/19/2011 1:59 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
That is fine with me as long
I as sorry i do not see the problem here.
as long as the properties setting in the trunk will show or hide all
widget comments (so in the trunk NO override) then it is fine.
why? because i think an override is an overkill anyway
Regards,
Hans
On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 08:43 +0200, Jacques
and
why it is needed. Could you give us another reason besides i think an
override is an overkill - like a reason based on a design issue or a
real-world problem?
-Adrian
On 9/19/2011 7:55 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
I as sorry i do not see the problem here.
as long as the properties
? I believe you already
answered this question, but I am asking again just to be
sure.
-Adrian
On 9/19/2011 10:14 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
If i use the widget comments option i want it to be generally applied
and taken away depending on the properties setting. I do not want to
find
and the reason why it
was done that way. I believe those things will help avoid confusion in
the future.
So, can we implement the behavior I described? I believe you already
answered this question, but I am asking again just to be sure.
-Adrian
On 9/19/2011 10:14 AM, Hans Bakker
ahead.
Regards
Hans
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 02:21 +0100, Adrian Crum wrote:
Thank you Hans, but repeating your confusing replies does not make them
any clearer.
I need a simple yes or no answer: May we implement the design I proposed?
-Adrian
On 9/20/2011 2:17 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Ok
Hi Scott,
We looked into your comment, but found that inventoryitem owner is not
always affecting accounting:
1. service product: foreign owner: no account update
2. rental product: is owner: also no accounting update
we are following however your remark to generalize:
for both product types
.
-Adrian
On 9/5/2011 7:46 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Currently we have:
load-tenant-data-readers
Loads data of given data-readers in the tenant database
run-tenant-install-file
Loads the data of the tenant using the command line argument
'file' to load data from a given file
I know this has come up before and every once in a while a customer is
asking how the reduce the display volume of the back-end.
How about change the screen, form and menu renderer to check for every
field in a database if it should be displayed or not.
The system should be able to start in
Thank you for the tip, we will have a look at it
Regards,
Hans
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 18:18 +0530, Deepak Dixit wrote:
Hi Hans,
inline:
On Sep 9, 2011, at 12:10 PM, hans...@apache.org wrote:
Author: hansbak
Date: Fri Sep 9 06:40:28 2011
New Revision: 1167015
URL:
Now we can have rental products where the asset can be rented
In this product type the product is a group of video rentals of the same
rental price referring to many video assets.
However now we also want to categorize these assets in order to display
them on the e-commerce website.
Is
, Hans Bakker wrote:
Now we can have rental products where the asset can be rented
In this product type the product is a group of video rentals of the same
rental price referring to many video assets.
However now we also want to categorize these assets in order to display
them on the e
.
-Adrian
On 9/23/2011 6:37 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
but if you want a particular instance of a product?
I have products (as i described):
In this product type the product is a group of video rentals of the
same rental price referring to many video assets.
Hans
On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 06:32
supports what you are trying to do if YOU think about it.
There is no need to connect a fixed asset to a product category.
-Adrian
On 9/23/2011 6:44 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
sure can do that, but i want a specific instance showing in one category
and another instance showing in a different
with different fixed asset titles in different genre's but the same
rental price
-Adrian
On 9/23/2011 6:51 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Can you help me think in the right direction?
how can i show some fixedassets of the same product in one category and
some of the assets in another category
Thanks for the comment, fixed in revision 1176145
Regards,
Hans
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 18:18 +0530, Deepak Dixit wrote:
Hi Hans,
inline:
On Sep 9, 2011, at 12:10 PM, hans...@apache.org wrote:
Author: hansbak
Date: Fri Sep 9 06:40:28 2011
New Revision: 1167015
URL:
Currently we have a userLoginId preference. What is fine for preferences
in screens etc.
However we would would like to have preferences on a party level, like
email notification preferences. This is rather difficult at the moment
because if you specify these at the userLogin level and there are
at 12:20 +0700, Hans Bakker wrote:
Now we can have rental products where the asset can be rented
In this product type the product is a group of video rentals of the same
rental price referring to many video assets.
However now we also want to categorize these assets in order to display
them
You are completely right, fixed in revision: 1176292
My compliment for spotting it, Sorry for that, will check more in the
future.
Regards,
Hans.
On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 20:17 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
Hi Hans,
There's a problem with this commit and r1176145, you've essentially changed
all
with partyrelations.rollup.roles (not
as defined by ofbiz, but the datamodel book) that a userloginId has,
against the PartyID info available.
that is a lot more detailed than I think you looking for.
Hans Bakker sent the following on 9/26/2011 7:12 PM:
Currently we have a userLoginId preference
tied to the partryID already.
Hans Bakker sent the following on 9/29/2011 3:11 AM:
Thanks BJ for the comment.
In order to keep the framework (login preference) and party preference
separated i would like to suggest to either:
1. extend the UserPreference entity and adding
Thank you Ruth for the comment, fixed in 1178317
Regards,
Hans
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 08:16 -0400, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
Hi Hans:
Indeed it does.
Not sure how this is suppose to work, but if you select the Browse Content
- Store Policies on the main landing page you get:
[POLICY]
for the depreciation
Without looking at the details (and I guess I may be missing some of them)
this seems to me a simpler approach that would have caused a smaller impact
in the existing code.
Kind regards,
Jacopo
On Sep 27, 2011, at 4:59 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Thanks Adrian and Paul
5, 2011, at 6:01 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Hi Jacopo,
thanks for you comment. I did look into this but decided to not
duplicate data in the system.
In the case where assets for maintenance and depreciation is not
connected with a serialized inventory item we will have a number
Hi Lon,
could you please tell us what the advantage is of this exercise no using
maven2?
Regards,
Hans
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 16:11 -0400, Lon Binder wrote:
I know Maven has been discussed briefly in the past, but we have gone ahead
full force with it locally. We have converted the entire
-- usually ;-)
7. Standardization of folder structure
That's off top of my head; there are more.
~~~
Lon F. Binder
917-669-7341
@lonbinder http://twitter.com/#%21/lonbinder (twitter)
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Hans Bakker
mailingl...@antwebsystems.comwrote:
Hi Lon,
could you
We would like to implement loyalty points. There is a box on the party
profile, but no database field, service etc.
Because loyalty points are a liability to the customer, accounting
should be aware of it and should be registered for example in the
billing account, however with a reference to the
other
discount - so we could use the existing discount-related accounting.
-Adrian
On 10/12/2011 1:16 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
We would like to implement loyalty points. There is a box on the party
profile, but no database field, service etc.
Because loyalty points are a liability
Jacques,
feature categories can be added, but not modified which is an
inconsistency i corrected.
However, when there are translations for records these cannot be
modified because the description is taken from the uilabel file, not
from the database which very confusing
I order for people
Roux wrote:
Thanks Hans,
After a test to be sure, I know understand the problem and removed the whole
block of labels at r1184991
Could you please have a look at the 2 other demands I posted on dev ML?
* Hardcoded sentences in default-message tags
* r1130415
Jacques
From: Hans Bakker
Hi Gareth,
At the moment when you start an application for the first time you need
a username/password., then it is not required anymore.
Why it does not behave like that in the demo version is, i quess, that
other people were already before you with the first login
Regards,
Hans
Dear mister Wai?
there is a nice README file in the ofbiz home directory?
if you follow its directions everything is fine.
we are very keen to repair anything that is blocking within hours...
and sure this is not a blocking problem?
Regards,
Hans
On 10/28/2011 12:12 AM, Wai wrote:
After
After the discussion in this mailing list we had, the following is proposed:
1. rename the UserPreference entity to Preference
2. rename the userLoginId in this entity to preferenceId
3. create a UserLoginPreference entity to link the preference to the
userLoginId
4. create a PartyPreference
or, just add the preferenceId to party and userLogin and not create the
two new entities..
On 11/02/2011 01:13 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
After the discussion in this mailing list we had, the following is
proposed:
1. rename the UserPreference entity to Preference
2. rename the userLoginId
Yes Adrian, that is why i phrased the log message that way. I was hoping
that the framework specialists, like you would pick this up? We merely
focus on the applications as you may know?
Regards, Hans
On 11/07/2011 03:58 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
If the field element is changing the type, then
Hi OFBiz community,
I have a request to implement group ordering.
That means orders are only full filled when a certain quantity of a
product is ordered before a certain date. When not, the orders are
automatically canceled.
The current proposal is:
Add the following fields to product:
for group ordering.
On 11/12/2011 10:02 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Hi OFBiz community,
I have a request to implement group ordering.
That means orders are only full filled when a certain quantity of a
product is ordered before a certain date. When not, the orders are
automatically canceled
, Hans Bakker wrote:
Some extra requirements:
1. It seems a start date is also required because deals are often
announced before they are active
2. The same product can be ordered as a grouporder and as a normal
product. This can be done with list/default price for normal ordering
and a new
Corrected in r1201631
thank you for reporting!
Regards,
Hans
On 11/13/2011 06:51 AM, J. Eckard wrote:
This breaks the sendReturnCompleteNotification service.
exception report --
Async-Service failed.
Exception:
Thanks you Gil for reporting and the patch.
revision 1204917
Regards,
Hans
On 11/22/2011 05:07 PM, Gil PORTENSEIGNE wrote:
Hi Hans,
If i'm not mistaken you forgot to change the classpath for ecj
library. See patch in attachment.
Should i make a jira for this kind of fix ?
Cheers,
Gil
Hi Nicolas,
please check out our blog about this subject at our website:
http://www.antwebsystems.com/control/ViewBlogArticle?contentId=18704
Regards,
Hans
On 11/22/2011 06:23 PM, Nicolas Malin wrote:
Just for my information, what gain to use tomcat for virtal host
instead of apache ?
Le
Hi Kiran,
For sites which use a loadbalancer in front of ofbiz, Apache webserver
is not required and the load balancer directly talks to the ofbiz 8080
port. Virtual host in ofbiz tomcat is then pretty useful and the system
gets less complicated not using also a webserver.
Concerning images,
Can we delete the themes/multiflex directory?
This theme is not in the theme selection list..
Regards,
Hans
Now you mention it, sure i remember
Thanks for the answer.
Regards,
Hans
On 11/25/2011 12:56 PM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
Le 25/11/2011 04:14, Hans Bakker a écrit :
Can we delete the themes/multiflex directory?
This theme is not in the theme selection list..
Regards,
Hans
Hans
Hi everybody,
I propose to add a new date field in the entity opportunity: nextStep date
This in order to list the opportunities in the find screen by the next
step date , i.e when the next action has to be taken,
Regards,
Hans
On 11/26/2011 01:21 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
Le 25/11/2011 13:00, Hans Bakker a écrit :
Hi everybody,
I propose to add a new date field in the entity opportunity: nextStep
date
This in order to list the opportunities in the find screen by the next
step date , i.e when the next action has
Yes Sure.
On 11/25/2011 10:57 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Sounds good to me, you mean SalesOpportunity, right?
Jacques
- Original Message - From: Hans Bakker
mailingl...@antwebsystems.com
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 1:00 PM
Subject: new field
Hi All,
We have the need to be able to add pre-approved tags to products,
content and workeffort.
We have a similar function already in the system with keywords. However
this is not pre-approved and less formal. I think we still can use this
function as long as we can distinguish the tags
Thank you everybody for the comments,
Committed revision 1206676.
Regards,
Hans
On 11/26/2011 06:21 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Yes Sure.
On 11/25/2011 10:57 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Sounds good to me, you mean SalesOpportunity, right?
Jacques
- Original Message - From: Hans Bakker
:38 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Thank you everybody for the comments,
Committed revision 1206676.
Regards,
Hans
On 11/26/2011 06:21 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Yes Sure.
On 11/25/2011 10:57 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Sounds good to me, you mean SalesOpportunity, right?
Jacques
- Original Message
Hi Jacopo, thanks for your reply...
see my answers inline...
On 11/29/2011 01:30 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Hi Hans,
On Nov 26, 2011, at 12:32 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Hi All,
We have the need to be able to add pre-approved tags to products, content and
workeffort.
My guess is that you
I think this is pretty interesting, it is an implementation of a
'simple' OFBiz component all in a single webappa pity that only ftl
is used, but still..
A demo version would be helpfull.
what is the license of this contribution, is it a contribution?
Regards,
Hans
On 12/01/2011
.
-Original Message-
From: Hans Bakker [mailto:mailingl...@antwebsystems.com]
Sent: 02 December 2011 06:45
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Cc: Len Shein
Subject: Re: Extending OFBiz: The BigFish eCommerce Project
I think this is pretty interesting, it is an implementation of a 'simple'
OFBiz component all
You could introduce a properties setting:
OrderAdjustMentTaxSettingAll=true/false
false: as is now: only promotion shipping according
TaxAuthorityRateProduct
true: tax on all order adjustments: ignore TaxAuthorityRateProduct
Show this setting on the TaxAuthorityRateProduct screen or do not
this commit cause compile to fail (after ./ant clean) with the following
message:
[javac16] Compiling 177 source files to
/data/jenkins/trunk/framework/base/build/classes
[javac16]
/data/jenkins/trunk/framework/base/src/org/ofbiz/base/util/test/StringUtilTests.java:103:
cannot find symbol
Yes a good idea:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4624
Regards,
Hans
On 12/13/2011 09:21 PM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
Hans,
could you create an associated Jira issue, so this won't be forgotten ?
Thanks,
2011/12/13hans...@apache.org:
Author: hansbak
Date: Tue Dec 13 11:04:57
on the errors/failures you are getting?
It seems I was able to run successfully all the tests.
Jacopo
On Dec 13, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Yes a good idea:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4624
Regards,
Hans
On 12/13/2011 09:21 PM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
Hans,
could you
the order
DEMO10091 is not found.
Jacopo
On Dec 13, 2011, at 4:56 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Hi Jacopo,
this is what is reported:
Error Message
ERROR: Could not complete the Test case for Purchase Invoices: editing, adding
taxes and shipping charges and posting to GL
[file:/data/jenkins/trunk
revert, was r1212147 and it began to
fail at r1212266
Do you need more help?
Jacques
From: Hans Bakker mailingl...@antwebsystems.com
Hi Jacopo,
thank you for looking into this.
yes sure i did run ./ant run-install
The test below needs some OrderItemBilling records for order
DEMO10091 which
AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Hi Jacopo,
thank you for looking into this.
yes sure i did run ./ant run-install
The test below needs some OrderItemBilling records for order DEMO10091 which
specifies an invoiceId.
these records are however not there and therefore the invoiceId is missing.
I can also
the tests in the meantime?
Jacopo
On Dec 15, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
At the moment pretty busy with other things, will have time this weekend or
next week,
On 12/15/2011 08:28 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Hi Hans,
any update on this?
Thanks,
Jacopo
On Dec 14, 2011, at 9:37 AM
tests fail here with OOTB settings
On 12/16/2011 05:14 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Jacopo,
Setting the language on the command line should not have any effect
because OFBiz sets the language when it starts up. See the
ofbiz.locale.default setting in start.properties.
I can duplicate the test
Hi Jacopo,
thanks for helping me, it is good try to work together instead of
personally accusing people. With the amount of commits we produce here
at Antwebsystems, it can once in a while go wrong and have errors. I am
setting up a Jenkins automated test system in our company to improve on
Hi community,
the version of Ant distributed with ofbiz is pretty old and has some
disadvantages:
1. does not support the failonerror=true on te patch command
2. difficult command line when using apply-ofbiz-patches:
../../ant apply-ofbiz-patches
i tested using the ant version 1.8.2 and
not upgrading the embedded version instead?
Jacopo
On Dec 22, 2011, at 4:23 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Hi community,
the version of Ant distributed with ofbiz is pretty old and has some
disadvantages:
1. does not support the failonerror=true on tepatch command
2. difficult command line when using apply-ofbiz
This change implemented in revision Committed revision 1222544.
we also added a status field to be able to have tags approved
Regards,
Hans
On 11/26/2011 06:32 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Hi All,
We have the need to be able to add pre-approved tags to products,
content and workeffort.
We have
system requirement for the
user.
Why not upgrading the embedded version instead?
Jacopo
On Dec 22, 2011, at 4:23 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Hi community,
the version of Ant distributed with ofbiz is pretty old and has some
disadvantages:
1. does not support the failonerror=true on tepatch command
Sergei, Paul.
as you suggested,
producrstore should not be used for purchase orders or anything purchase
tax related,
productstore is for sales only
regards,
Hans
On 12/31/2011 01:44 PM, Paul Foxworthy wrote:
Hi Sergei,
Title transfer is about when ownership transfers from the seller to
comments or enhancements, very welcome!
On 01/04/2012 05:03 PM, Chatree Srichart (Updated) (JIRA) wrote:
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4638?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Chatree Srichart updated OFBIZ-4638:
Hi Adrian,
For a large product load we disable the seca's temporarily and after
the load enable them again...
When people enter new single products sometimes they try to find these
straight away under the current scheme is working fine
sorry do not see the madness herethe end of
forgot to mention, that re-creating keywords, these jobs already exist.
On 01/14/2012 08:04 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Hi Adrian,
For a large product load we disable the seca's temporarily and after
the load enable them again...
When people enter new single products sometimes they try
looks like these tests are still failing...
javascript:showStackTrace('test-org.ofbiz.content.test.LuceneTests.testCreateIndex','org.ofbiz.content.test/LuceneTests/testCreateIndex//summary')
org.ofbiz.content.test.LuceneTests.testCreateIndex
Thank you sacha, tests are now running fine again.
On 01/17/2012 02:11 AM, Sascha Rodekamp wrote:
Hi,
ok there is a problem with the two different lucene versions. I
removed the version 3.0.3 and disable the jackrabbit searchIndex.
That means for now we aren't able to search in the
Hi Erwan,
i am also looking at that
don't you think it is better to move these to demo?
they vary a lot between companies.
regards,
Hans
On 01/17/2012 04:55 PM, er...@apache.org wrote:
Author: erwan
Date: Tue Jan 17 09:55:47 2012
New Revision: 1232373
URL:
happen often...wait until the next commit
Jacques and me are experts here
Regards,
Hans
On 01/17/2012 05:46 PM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
Le 17/01/2012 11:25, build...@apache.org a écrit :
The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder ofbiz-trunk while
building ASF Buildbot.
these type directly with seed inside a
hot-deploy component...
On 01/17/2012 08:10 PM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
Le 17/01/2012 11:15, Hans Bakker a écrit :
Hi Erwan,
i am also looking at that
don't you think it is better to move these to demo?
they vary a lot between companies.
regards
Hi Ardrian,
Please remember that these info messages are generated by the related
components. So if the scrum coponent is not used, it will not generate
any scrum specifc messages so the link back into the scrum component
will not happen.
The same with the other components
Regards,
Hans
Problem:
1. If you would like to have different tenants on your system and want
to have different property settings for each tenant laike language or
currency etc, that is currently not supported.
2. the properties are not very well organized, to say the least.
Proposal:
No it is not, property settings are taken for every tenant from the
properties file.
Do not confuse with userPreferences which are settings per userlogin.
Do not have a list yet...but is not really required because if it is
missing in the entity it still will retrieve it from the properties
Then I am always thinking, why didn't you contribute it?
On 01/27/2012 02:49 PM, pierre.gaudin wrote:
Yes this is a good idea. We did such a modification into an old OFbiz
project and it was very useful.
On 27/01/2012 07:40, Hans Bakker wrote:
Problem:
1. If you would like
The last point i would implement where is requiredfor example debug
properties do not need an override..
Regards,Hans
On 02/01/2012 05:36 PM, Chatree Srichart wrote:
So, what I could do next are:
- add systemResource field
- implement every methods in EntityUtilProperties
- replace
Hi Tom,
Thank you for your comments, could you raise a Jira issue for this?
Thank you in advance,
Regards,
Hans
On 02/02/2012 02:04 AM, Tom Burns wrote:
In the latest trunk the tree off the HR Main menu has some
questionable behavior:
1. The developer and test persons created in the
40
te Oss. Parkeerplaats nabij
Dit is dichtbij het Station (redelijke loopafstand).
Tot nu toe zullen aanwezig zijn:
Hans Bakker (Ant WebSystem)
Willem Janssen (zchok.nl)
Dennis Tilgenkamp (Xaton) - tentative
En ik.
Tot zaterdag.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Pierre Smits
It Looks like there is not much interest and too be honest what is the
advantage doing this?
If you already have a tomcat, just change the port assignment in ofbiz
so your current tomcat and ofbiz can run both on the same server
Regards,
Hans
On 02/17/2012 03:09 PM, Mansour Al Akeel
It took some time agrian, we we just implemented your comment in
revision 1292180.
On 01/23/2012 01:50 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Hans,
Why would you do this? This commit makes the commonext component
dependent on two special purpose components. Please keep
application-specific code inside the
Sorry, Just a typo in your name i meant of course: Adrian
Regards,
Hans
On 02/22/2012 03:37 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
It took some time agrian, we we just implemented your comment in
revision 1292180.
On 01/23/2012 01:50 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Hans,
Why would you do this? This commit makes
+1
Hans
On 02/23/2012 03:35 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Hi devs,
I would like to propose to officially close the two oldest branches:
release4.0
release09.04
When the branches will be closed:
* we will no more backport fixes to them (no commits in general will be done)
* if a user will
On 02/27/2012 06:15 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
- Original Message - From: Jacopo Cappellato
jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: Some thoughts on OFBiz demo instances
So my point is: why are we
Jacopo,
there is, as you state no rule against it, i gave you my reasons and
stay with my opinion that it should stay on the main page.
Regards,
Hans
On 02/27/2012 07:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:46 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
On 02/27/2012 06:15 PM, Jacques Le Roux
its source files in the OFBiz svn?
-
That you even consider this as the first optionnot sound good..
Regards
On 03/02/2012 02:05 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Mar 2, 2012, at 7:50 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Jacopo,
You would even
will reply to your email later.
Jacopo
On Mar 2, 2012, at 8:20 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Jacopo,
please read in the original message.you took it away here.
you wrote:
-
If the OFBiz community will ever consider to adopt Moqui as the new
1 - 100 of 1753 matches
Mail list logo
