The work I did is so old and out of date that it is probably unusable by
now. It might be best to start over.
-Adrian
Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
You are right Christopher.
We will have to migrate (and integrate) the user interface for SecurityGroups
and User Login management from the Party to a framework component: this could
be a new one, the webtools (I like the idea of having them in the webtools), a
new webapp under security etc...
I am sure that Adrian started this effort and put his code in Jira.
Jacopo
On Dec 10, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Christopher Snow wrote:
Hi Michael,
The problem with putting in the Party component is that it will throw up
errors due to dependencies on other components. (Try it and see!)
It is likely that a new component will be required (i.e. developed) for
a standalone framework that has basic user account management functionality.
What party management functionality would you want to see in the
standalone framework?
Cheers,
Chris
Michael Xu (xudong) wrote:
hi Christopher,
That wiki page looks great. Thanks.
Do we need to remain Party there as part of framework?
--
Regards,
Michael Xu (xudong)
www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 0135
9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Christopher Snow <
[email protected]> wrote:
I've also started putting a page together on the steps for manually
separating the core framework:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Ofbiz+as+a+development+framework
The pages are just my documentation of the steps needed. I still think its
a good idea to have a page for collecting the requirements.
Christopher Snow wrote:
Sounds good to me!
Bruno Busco wrote:
Should we try to write a "framework-only" feature proposal page like
the one Scott has writted for "Saved Searches"
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Saved+Searches
collecting all requirements from the mails?
Having the path written could help volunteers to contribute in the
right direction.
-Bruno
2009/12/4 Christopher Snow <[email protected]>:
That makes a lot of sense - thanks again Scott!
Scott Gray wrote:
That risk is run by anybody who gets the ball rolling on any new
proposal, be it a contributor, committer or PMC member. Nobody is
capable of pushing through substantial change without the approval of
the community at large.
The key for any amount of work is to collaborate with the community as
much as possible, if something is large then just break it down and
discuss each change piece by piece. An approach such as this
substantially reduces the risk that any work done will be wasted and
generally improves the overall design.
Regards
Scott
On 4/12/2009, at 7:27 PM, chris snow wrote:
Hi Adrian,
For a change that may be substantial, could this approach be quite
risky
that a lot of time could be spent developing something that may not be
accepted?
Many thanks,
Chris
Adrian Crum wrote:
That is not how the open source community works. If anyone wants to
see
this move along, they need to make the desired changes to their local
copy, create a patch, and submit it to Jira.
As far as coordination is concerned, there is an "umbrella" Jira
issue
for this already. Just make new Jira issues sub-tasks of it.
-Adrian
Michael Xu (xudong) wrote:
hi,
Like Bruno mentioned, this topic has been discussed over many
times. And
it
is time to take some actions. I really think one or more leaders
should
lead
the process. Otherwise, the discussion might be around for a long
long
time.
--
Regards,
Michael Xu (xudong)
www.wizitsoft.com
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 7:41 PM, chris snow <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Bruno,
I would like to help. Are you coordinating efforts?
Many thanks,
Chris
Bruno Busco wrote:
Hi Michael,
the framework isolation and a framework-only installation is
definitely something the community as talken about many times. You
will find several conversations searching the mailing list.
We will have it sooner or later and any help you could provide on
this
topic will be much appreciated.
-Bruno
2009/11/24 Michael Xu (xudong) <[email protected]>:
hmm...I compared the article and the latest code from trunk. I
don't
think
the diagram is consistent with codes.
For example, from the diagram party doesn't depend on marketing;
however,
as
I mentioned in previous email, party entity definition does use
ContactListParty from marketing.
--
Regards,
Michael Xu (xudong)
www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile:
(86)
135
0135
9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Michael Xu (xudong)
<[email protected]>wrote:
Just found an article about the dependency:
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies
<
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies
From
the component relationship diagram, it seems I have to include
all
components under framework and application in my new
application. Is
it
correct?
--
Regards,
Michael Xu (xudong)
www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile:
(86)
135
0135 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Michael Xu (xudong) <
[email protected]> wrote:
hi all,
I try to build a new application using ofbiz. Basically, I
want to
use
the
nice overall architect of ofbiz, theme mechanism and
Party/Permission/SecurityGroup. However, I found it is very
difficult
to
remove unnecessary components.
For example, entitymodel.xml from applications/party
uses ContactListParty, which is from marketing component. I
think
such
dependency doesn't make much sense, as marketing is only an
optional
component but party is a must.
What's the best practice for my case? Advices and clues will
be very
appreciated. Thanks in advance.
--
Regards,
Michael Xu
--
View this message in context:
http://n4.nabble.com/about-using-ofbiz-as-a-platform-tp786778p933001.html
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
View this message in context:
http://n4.nabble.com/about-using-ofbiz-as-a-platform-tp786778p948290.html
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Chris Snow - CEng MBCS CITP MBA (Tech Mgmt) (Open) CISSP
Tel: 01453 890660
Mob: 07944 880950
Www: www.snowconsulting.co.uk
--
Chris Snow - CEng MBCS CITP MBA (Tech Mgmt) (Open) CISSP
Tel: 01453 890660
Mob: 07944 880950
Www: www.snowconsulting.co.uk
--
Chris Snow - CEng MBCS CITP MBA (Tech Mgmt) (Open) CISSP
Tel: 01453 890660
Mob: 07944 880950
Www: www.snowconsulting.co.uk
