Hi, about UiLabels redundancy please read this jira issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1698
Here i have attached a python script that could completely remove UiLabels redundancy. We are in the phase of having an agreement about the files hierarchy order. This will affect where a redundant label will be left or deleted. - Bruno 2008/3/25, Rishi Solanki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Hello All, > > As per my understanding, I wish to add some reasonable points in this > discussion of uiLables. > Here when we start our application (after starting the server) then all > the > uiLables are loaded once, > in turn, there will be no searching time increases when server search for > uiLables values > (means the time is negligible when we comparing it with cost on > maintainance). > > > Thanks and Regards : > [Rishi Solanki] > > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 9:04 AM, David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > For the including controller.xml files I'd say that applies, it is > > worse than the minimal redundancy resulting from copying a few request > > and view defs. > > > > For *UiLabel.* files I'd say it does not apply. Those are meant to be > > a big set of labels, and with those not including would result in > > massive redundancy (which is happening already, and is rough to > > maintain and generally bad). > > > > -David > > > > > > On Mar 24, 2008, at 5:31 PM, Sumit Pandit wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > This is really a great explanation given by David. > > > Continuing to this I would like to ask similar question to the > > > community, > > > > > > Let the assume the situation where I am working in a component (say > > > order) and if I want UiLabel entry(one or more ?) from some > > > different component (say party). So which is batter option :- > > > 1) include the UiLabel of party or > > > 2) make a new entry in the OrderUiLabels.xml ? > > > > > > Again I will go with second option. > > > > > > Also I am highly recommended the following lines written by David :- > > > *However, if you are getting a lot more than your want in reusing > > > something it may be worse (which isn't the case for most tools, but > > > certainly applies here) then it may actually be a bad thing and not > > > a good one. : *Is it applies here ? > > > > > > Thanks > > > Sumit > > > > > > > > > David E Jones wrote: > > >> > > >> This is something that could certainly swing both ways. In general > > >> though if you don't want all requests and views from another > > >> controller.xml file then including it is probably not the best idea. > > >> > > >> Controller request and view entries are so small that some > > >> redundancy there is not a big deal, and is a cost that could be > > >> outweighed by the benefit of being able to look at the > > >> controller.xml file, in this case for the Project Manager app, and > > >> see all of the requests and views involved in the app. If request > > >> and view definitions from a bunch of other controller.xml files are > > >> simply included then it is a LOT of work to figure out which ones > > >> are used and which ones aren't, making maintenance and future > > >> development significantly more difficult. > > >> > > >> In general Vikas is right that reusing as much as possible is the > > >> way to go and will result in less code and easier to maintain > > >> applications. However, if you are getting a lot more than your want > > >> in reusing something it may be worse (which isn't the case for most > > >> tools, but certainly applies here) then it may actually be a bad > > >> thing and not a good one. > > >> > > >> If there was a way to specify requests and views to leave out when > > >> including another controller.xml file then including them from 5 > > >> other apps for just a few here and there would be acceptable (there > > >> wouldn't be a bunch of bogus and unused requests and views), but it > > >> wouldn't be very efficient because you would have so many > > >> exclusions just to include a few things here and there. > > >> > > >> So yes, I'd say the approach Rishi is proposing is the better way: > > >> only include the controller.xml files if you want all of the > > >> requests and views, and don't worry about the minimal redundancy in > > >> redefining the requests and views for a derived application. In > > >> fact, this is usually a good thing as it allows for variations in > > >> screen flows and such. > > >> > > >> -David > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mar 20, 2008, at 5:58 AM, Rishi Solanki wrote: > > >>> Thanks for involvement in this discussion and reply. > > >>> But We are reusing the view, Services and Screens as well. > > >>> only enter new uri for that. So the searching for the uri will be > > >>> among > > >>> less number of uri's by the ControlServlet. > > >>> Please Correct me, I may be wrong. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks and Regards : > > >>> [Rishi Solanki] > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Vikas Mayur > > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Rishi Solanki < > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>> > > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Hi All, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I have a question related to including other application > > >>>>> controller in > > >>>> to > > >>>>> new under development application. > > >>>>> For example : We have included five more controller in projectmgr > > >>>>> application as ; catalog, ordermgr, accounting, workeffort, and > > >>>> humanres. > > >>>>> Here I think that if we have to use 20 - 30 uri of other > > >>>>> controller, and > > >>>>> suppose all controllers have 100 uri. > > >>>>> So, Here is my question that, > > >>>>> Should we include these five controllers in projectmgr or we may > > >>>>> create > > >>>>> new > > >>>>> uri's for the same in the projectmgr component. Because > > >>>>> as per my understanding, every time the uri when not found in the > > >>>>> controller > > >>>>> of projectmgr it will search the same uri in other controller > > >>>>> as per sequence they included in the projectmgr controller. > > >>>>> Now which approach is better in such case if we consider the > > >>>>> performance > > >>>> : > > >>>>> " Either we should include the controller in the new application > > >>>>> controller > > >>>>> or we may write our own uri's in new application controller. " > > >>>>> > > >>>>> My vote is we should go for Write our own uri in the new > > >>>>> application > > >>>>> controller. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> This is not a best practice, this totally does not favour code > > >>>> re-usability > > >>>> and maintenance. > > >>>> > > >>>> Vikas > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Suggestion's are most welcome. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thanks and Regards : > > >>>>> [Rishi Solanki] > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > > > > > > >
