I don't see where any backward compatibility was broken - unless you are referring to the screenshots in Ruth's books. By the way, I believe those books are based on release 9.04 - which has the previous version of the Flat Grey theme. It's also interesting to note that the release 9.04 Flat Grey theme replaced an earlier (uglier IMO) one.
The updated Flat Grey theme has all of the same elements in the same locations - with the exception of the user preference settings links. The new theme has new colors and background images, otherwise it's the same. -Adrian --- On Thu, 1/20/11, Mike <[email protected]> wrote: > Not to completely agree with Ruth and > BJ [grin]... > > However on a practical viewpoint, all of the existing > documentation of > OFBiz, including two hardcopy books (one of them Ruths) and > countless > other PDFs (Ruths, etc..) and other sources of > documentation shows the > flatgrey theme for screenshot examples. In addition, > there are > (probably) various other organizational training manuals > that exist > which would use flatgrey as screenshot examples (click > here, etc.). > What about all the suppliers that have back-end access, do > we also > have to instruct them about the new theme? What about > their training > manuals? This was a HUGE change IMHO. > > So it's not the new theme, it's the deletion of the old one > that's the > issue. From from day one, I tried all the other > themes and I still > prefer the flatgrey, because I think it was a well thought > out > navigation system. Dave did an excellent > job tying all the functions > together into a nice, logical layout. The multiple > tabs really work > for me. > > It's ok to change the default theme, but please let's not > break the > backward compatibility of OFBiz's supporting > infrastructure. > > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience > the PMC does live in a > > vacuum. As the saying goes...you guys "don't have a > clue". > > Just my 2 cents. > > Ruth > > > > On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > >> > >> That's not true. Every change is discussed and > debated. > >> > >> The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a > vacuum - they have > >> production systems to maintain. It is silly to > think they would not consider > >> those production systems when proposing changes. > >> > >> -Adrian > >> > >> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman<[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> you will find that the ofbiz > >>> developer group first priority is to change > >>> before considering the effect on production > systemm using > >>> offbiz. > >>> something I lobby against, but has little > effect. > >>> so I have a system to accomplish this > regardless of what > >>> they do. > >>> > >>> > >>> ========================= > >>> BJ Freeman > >>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier > Automation > >>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52> > >>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/> > >>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist > >>> > >>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man > >>> > >>> > >>> Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM: > >>>> > >>>> But why delete it? Alot of folks learned > ofbiz > >>> > >>> on flatgrey, and their > >>>> > >>>> employees are used to it. At least keep > it > >>> > >>> around as flatgrey_old. > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian > Crum<[email protected]> > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> That theme was starting to look old, > so the > >>> > >>> developer community decided to > >>>>> > >>>>> update it. > >>>>> > >>>>> If you prefer the old version of the > theme, you > >>> > >>> are welcome to replace the > >>>>> > >>>>> new one with it. > >>>>> > >>>>> -Adrian > >>>>> > >>>>> On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I just loaded trunk and discovered > that the > >>> > >>> normal flatgrey theme has > >>>>>> > >>>>>> been completely redefined. What > >>> > >>> happened? I thought it was actually > >>>>>> > >>>>>> the best theme that was very well > >>> > >>> organized. Is there a way to get it > >>>>>> > >>>>>> back? > >>>>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > >
