You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com> on 2009/06/24 01:06:48 UTC
Discussion: iCalendar Integration
I'm almost ready to commit the work I have been doing on the iCalendar
integration. Before I do, I would like some feedback on a particular
function.
Background: One work effort serves as an iCalendar "publish point" -
it's not a work effort that anyone interacts with, it just contains
settings that tell the iCalendar servlet what to do. In the current
implementation, all public work efforts of all parties assigned to the
publish point will be included in the calendar. The party's assignment
role is ignored. The publish point's scope (public, confidential,
private) is ignored. These are things I would like to change.
In the new implementation, if the publish point work effort has a public
scope, then anyone can view work efforts that are related to it. If the
scope isn't public, then access to the related work efforts is
restricted to only the parties who are assigned to the publish point.
Oops, now I have a conflict with the previous implementation - where a
party assignment meant to include that party's public work efforts in
the calendar.
Here's where I need the feedback. I need to use the publish point work
effort to party assignment ROLE to control what the servlet does. A
party related to the publish point in role "A" is a party whose public
work efforts are included in the calendar. A party assigned to the
publish point in role "B" is a party whose access to the calendar is
controlled by the publish point.
Looking at the current calendar roles, we have Attendee, Delegate, Host,
Organizer, and Owner. The Delegate role might be appropriate for the
party in role "B". I don't know what to do about the party in role "A" -
should I create a new role? Something like "Calendar Participant" or
"Calendar Member"?
Any feedback would be appreciated!
-Adrian
Re: Discussion: iCalendar Integration
Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
Hi Adrian,
thanks first of all the work you are doing here, and excellent addition
to the system. However i have the impression that not enough existing
functions in ofbiz are re-used and the implementation is not integrated
enough. Related to that is how this will work together with the calendar
function in workeffort? In that calendar there is no publishpoint.
In the end, the ical calendar downloaded should be the same as the
workeffort calendar showed in the screens?
Can you please explain what your thoughts are on this?
see further my comments inline....
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 16:06 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
> I'm almost ready to commit the work I have been doing on the iCalendar
> integration. Before I do, I would like some feedback on a particular
> function.
>
> Background: One work effort serves as an iCalendar "publish point" -
> it's not a work effort that anyone interacts with, it just contains
> settings that tell the iCalendar servlet what to do. In the current
> implementation, all public work efforts of all parties assigned to the
> publish point will be included in the calendar. The party's assignment
> role is ignored. The publish point's scope (public, confidential,
> private) is ignored. These are things I would like to change.
>
> In the new implementation, if the publish point work effort has a public
> scope, then anyone can view work efforts that are related to it. If the
> scope isn't public, then access to the related work efforts is
> restricted to only the parties who are assigned to the publish point.
> Oops, now I have a conflict with the previous implementation - where a
> party assignment meant to include that party's public work efforts in
> the calendar.
>
> Here's where I need the feedback. I need to use the publish point work
> effort to party assignment ROLE to control what the servlet does. A
> party related to the publish point in role "A" is a party whose public
> work efforts are included in the calendar. A party assigned to the
> publish point in role "B" is a party whose access to the calendar is
> controlled by the publish point.
it looks like that the info at the related workeffort to the publish
point should override the info at the publish point. If the publish
point is public but the related workefffort is not then that event
should not be available.
What do you mean here with role "A" and role "B"? I am lost here
>
> Looking at the current calendar roles, we have Attendee, Delegate, Host,
> Organizer, and Owner. The Delegate role might be appropriate for the
> party in role "B". I don't know what to do about the party in role "A" -
> should I create a new role? Something like "Calendar Participant" or
> "Calendar Member"?
>
> Any feedback would be appreciated!
>
> -Adrian
--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
Re: SV: Discussion: iCalendar Integration
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.
What you're describing is probably handled best within the work effort
application.
The iCalendar integration is simply a means to provide work effort data
in iCalendar format for iCalendar clients to use. It is not intended to
be a project management program (which already exists in OFBiz).
-Adrian
Torstein Hegbom wrote:
> I think it would be better to abstract the role into a group, so that the
> work-effort could be published to a group. The group will have roles and the
> roles will have persons. When a workeffort has been started it will not be
> visible to others.
>
> This means that the group will have a responsibility to have the work done,
> and the group manager can manage the work. Then the group could have a
> calendar, with skill and other functionality defined in party.
>
> How about Timesheet-management (those persons that forgot to fill it in, and
> those that has filled in too many hours by mistake, or has used wrong
> workeffort in the timesheet)? I have not seen this functionality in OFBiz,
> but this will be added by the work you are doing?
>
> Torstein
>
>
> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
> Fra: Adrian Crum [mailto:adrianc@hlmksw.com]
> Sendt: 24. juni 2009 19:29
> Til: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
> Emne: Re: Discussion: iCalendar Integration
>
> The improved iCalendar integration has been committed, and there is a
> Wiki page: http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/piE.
>
> I still haven't resolved the party assignment role issue, but it will be
> an easy change to make once a decision is made.
>
> -Adrian
>
> Adrian Crum wrote:
>> I'm almost ready to commit the work I have been doing on the iCalendar
>> integration. Before I do, I would like some feedback on a particular
>> function.
>>
>> Background: One work effort serves as an iCalendar "publish point" -
>> it's not a work effort that anyone interacts with, it just contains
>> settings that tell the iCalendar servlet what to do. In the current
>> implementation, all public work efforts of all parties assigned to the
>> publish point will be included in the calendar. The party's assignment
>> role is ignored. The publish point's scope (public, confidential,
>> private) is ignored. These are things I would like to change.
>>
>> In the new implementation, if the publish point work effort has a public
>> scope, then anyone can view work efforts that are related to it. If the
>> scope isn't public, then access to the related work efforts is
>> restricted to only the parties who are assigned to the publish point.
>> Oops, now I have a conflict with the previous implementation - where a
>> party assignment meant to include that party's public work efforts in
>> the calendar.
>>
>> Here's where I need the feedback. I need to use the publish point work
>> effort to party assignment ROLE to control what the servlet does. A
>> party related to the publish point in role "A" is a party whose public
>> work efforts are included in the calendar. A party assigned to the
>> publish point in role "B" is a party whose access to the calendar is
>> controlled by the publish point.
>>
>> Looking at the current calendar roles, we have Attendee, Delegate, Host,
>> Organizer, and Owner. The Delegate role might be appropriate for the
>> party in role "B". I don't know what to do about the party in role "A" -
>> should I create a new role? Something like "Calendar Participant" or
>> "Calendar Member"?
>>
>> Any feedback would be appreciated!
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>
>
Re: SV: Discussion: iCalendar Integration
Posted by Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>.
Please have a look at the project manager, it is all there.....even the
invoicing of these entered hours....
On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 19:48 +0200, Torstein Hegbom wrote:
> .....
> How about Timesheet-management (those persons that forgot to fill it in, and
> those that has filled in too many hours by mistake, or has used wrong
> workeffort in the timesheet)? I have not seen this functionality in OFBiz,
> but this will be added by the work you are doing?
SV: Discussion: iCalendar Integration
Posted by Torstein Hegbom <to...@itpolaris.no>.
I think it would be better to abstract the role into a group, so that the
work-effort could be published to a group. The group will have roles and the
roles will have persons. When a workeffort has been started it will not be
visible to others.
This means that the group will have a responsibility to have the work done,
and the group manager can manage the work. Then the group could have a
calendar, with skill and other functionality defined in party.
How about Timesheet-management (those persons that forgot to fill it in, and
those that has filled in too many hours by mistake, or has used wrong
workeffort in the timesheet)? I have not seen this functionality in OFBiz,
but this will be added by the work you are doing?
Torstein
-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: Adrian Crum [mailto:adrianc@hlmksw.com]
Sendt: 24. juni 2009 19:29
Til: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Emne: Re: Discussion: iCalendar Integration
The improved iCalendar integration has been committed, and there is a
Wiki page: http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/piE.
I still haven't resolved the party assignment role issue, but it will be
an easy change to make once a decision is made.
-Adrian
Adrian Crum wrote:
> I'm almost ready to commit the work I have been doing on the iCalendar
> integration. Before I do, I would like some feedback on a particular
> function.
>
> Background: One work effort serves as an iCalendar "publish point" -
> it's not a work effort that anyone interacts with, it just contains
> settings that tell the iCalendar servlet what to do. In the current
> implementation, all public work efforts of all parties assigned to the
> publish point will be included in the calendar. The party's assignment
> role is ignored. The publish point's scope (public, confidential,
> private) is ignored. These are things I would like to change.
>
> In the new implementation, if the publish point work effort has a public
> scope, then anyone can view work efforts that are related to it. If the
> scope isn't public, then access to the related work efforts is
> restricted to only the parties who are assigned to the publish point.
> Oops, now I have a conflict with the previous implementation - where a
> party assignment meant to include that party's public work efforts in
> the calendar.
>
> Here's where I need the feedback. I need to use the publish point work
> effort to party assignment ROLE to control what the servlet does. A
> party related to the publish point in role "A" is a party whose public
> work efforts are included in the calendar. A party assigned to the
> publish point in role "B" is a party whose access to the calendar is
> controlled by the publish point.
>
> Looking at the current calendar roles, we have Attendee, Delegate, Host,
> Organizer, and Owner. The Delegate role might be appropriate for the
> party in role "B". I don't know what to do about the party in role "A" -
> should I create a new role? Something like "Calendar Participant" or
> "Calendar Member"?
>
> Any feedback would be appreciated!
>
> -Adrian
>
Re: Discussion: iCalendar Integration
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.
The improved iCalendar integration has been committed, and there is a
Wiki page: http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/piE.
I still haven't resolved the party assignment role issue, but it will be
an easy change to make once a decision is made.
-Adrian
Adrian Crum wrote:
> I'm almost ready to commit the work I have been doing on the iCalendar
> integration. Before I do, I would like some feedback on a particular
> function.
>
> Background: One work effort serves as an iCalendar "publish point" -
> it's not a work effort that anyone interacts with, it just contains
> settings that tell the iCalendar servlet what to do. In the current
> implementation, all public work efforts of all parties assigned to the
> publish point will be included in the calendar. The party's assignment
> role is ignored. The publish point's scope (public, confidential,
> private) is ignored. These are things I would like to change.
>
> In the new implementation, if the publish point work effort has a public
> scope, then anyone can view work efforts that are related to it. If the
> scope isn't public, then access to the related work efforts is
> restricted to only the parties who are assigned to the publish point.
> Oops, now I have a conflict with the previous implementation - where a
> party assignment meant to include that party's public work efforts in
> the calendar.
>
> Here's where I need the feedback. I need to use the publish point work
> effort to party assignment ROLE to control what the servlet does. A
> party related to the publish point in role "A" is a party whose public
> work efforts are included in the calendar. A party assigned to the
> publish point in role "B" is a party whose access to the calendar is
> controlled by the publish point.
>
> Looking at the current calendar roles, we have Attendee, Delegate, Host,
> Organizer, and Owner. The Delegate role might be appropriate for the
> party in role "B". I don't know what to do about the party in role "A" -
> should I create a new role? Something like "Calendar Participant" or
> "Calendar Member"?
>
> Any feedback would be appreciated!
>
> -Adrian
>
Re: Discussion: iCalendar Integration
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Thanks Adrian,
A lot to read tough...
Jacques
From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@hlmksw.com>
> http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2445.html
>
>
> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> Yes I see it's used in OFBiz, but which RFC are you speaking about ?
>> I thought you were speaking about http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/qA8 attachment
>> but obvisouly it's not there.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@hlmksw.com>
>>> Thanks Jacques! Attendee is already defined in the RFC, so I was
>>> trying not to use it - since that might cause confusion.
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@hlmksw.com>
>>>>> I'm almost ready to commit the work I have been doing on the
>>>>> iCalendar integration. Before I do, I would like some feedback on a
>>>>> particular function.
>>>>>
>>>>> Background: One work effort serves as an iCalendar "publish point" -
>>>>> it's not a work effort that anyone interacts with, it just contains
>>>>> settings that tell the iCalendar servlet what to do. In the current
>>>>> implementation, all public work efforts of all parties assigned to
>>>>> the publish point will be included in the calendar. The party's
>>>>> assignment role is ignored. The publish point's scope (public,
>>>>> confidential, private) is ignored. These are things I would like to
>>>>> change.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the new implementation, if the publish point work effort has a
>>>>> public scope, then anyone can view work efforts that are related to
>>>>> it. If the scope isn't public, then access to the related work
>>>>> efforts is restricted to only the parties who are assigned to the
>>>>> publish point. Oops, now I have a conflict with the previous
>>>>> implementation - where a party assignment meant to include that
>>>>> party's public work efforts in the calendar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's where I need the feedback. I need to use the publish point
>>>>> work effort to party assignment ROLE to control what the servlet
>>>>> does. A party related to the publish point in role "A" is a party
>>>>> whose public work efforts are included in the calendar. A party
>>>>> assigned to the publish point in role "B" is a party whose access to
>>>>> the calendar is controlled by the publish point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at the current calendar roles, we have Attendee, Delegate,
>>>>> Host, Organizer, and Owner. The Delegate role might be appropriate
>>>>> for the party in role "B". I don't know what to do about the party
>>>>> in role "A" - should I create a new role? Something like "Calendar
>>>>> Participant" or "Calendar Member"?
>>>>
>>>> I think Attendee would be good but if you need to keep it for other
>>>> needs then Calendar Participant sounds good to me
>>>>
>>>> My 2 cts
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Any feedback would be appreciated!
>>>>>
>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Discussion: iCalendar Integration
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.
http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2445.html
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Yes I see it's used in OFBiz, but which RFC are you speaking about ?
> I thought you were speaking about http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/qA8 attachment
> but obvisouly it's not there.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@hlmksw.com>
>> Thanks Jacques! Attendee is already defined in the RFC, so I was
>> trying not to use it - since that might cause confusion.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@hlmksw.com>
>>>> I'm almost ready to commit the work I have been doing on the
>>>> iCalendar integration. Before I do, I would like some feedback on a
>>>> particular function.
>>>>
>>>> Background: One work effort serves as an iCalendar "publish point" -
>>>> it's not a work effort that anyone interacts with, it just contains
>>>> settings that tell the iCalendar servlet what to do. In the current
>>>> implementation, all public work efforts of all parties assigned to
>>>> the publish point will be included in the calendar. The party's
>>>> assignment role is ignored. The publish point's scope (public,
>>>> confidential, private) is ignored. These are things I would like to
>>>> change.
>>>>
>>>> In the new implementation, if the publish point work effort has a
>>>> public scope, then anyone can view work efforts that are related to
>>>> it. If the scope isn't public, then access to the related work
>>>> efforts is restricted to only the parties who are assigned to the
>>>> publish point. Oops, now I have a conflict with the previous
>>>> implementation - where a party assignment meant to include that
>>>> party's public work efforts in the calendar.
>>>>
>>>> Here's where I need the feedback. I need to use the publish point
>>>> work effort to party assignment ROLE to control what the servlet
>>>> does. A party related to the publish point in role "A" is a party
>>>> whose public work efforts are included in the calendar. A party
>>>> assigned to the publish point in role "B" is a party whose access to
>>>> the calendar is controlled by the publish point.
>>>>
>>>> Looking at the current calendar roles, we have Attendee, Delegate,
>>>> Host, Organizer, and Owner. The Delegate role might be appropriate
>>>> for the party in role "B". I don't know what to do about the party
>>>> in role "A" - should I create a new role? Something like "Calendar
>>>> Participant" or "Calendar Member"?
>>>
>>> I think Attendee would be good but if you need to keep it for other
>>> needs then Calendar Participant sounds good to me
>>>
>>> My 2 cts
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>>> Any feedback would be appreciated!
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: Discussion: iCalendar Integration
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Yes I see it's used in OFBiz, but which RFC are you speaking about ?
I thought you were speaking about http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/qA8 attachment but obvisouly it's not there.
Thanks
Jacques
From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@hlmksw.com>
> Thanks Jacques! Attendee is already defined in the RFC, so I was trying
> not to use it - since that might cause confusion.
>
> -Adrian
>
> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@hlmksw.com>
>>> I'm almost ready to commit the work I have been doing on the iCalendar
>>> integration. Before I do, I would like some feedback on a particular
>>> function.
>>>
>>> Background: One work effort serves as an iCalendar "publish point" -
>>> it's not a work effort that anyone interacts with, it just contains
>>> settings that tell the iCalendar servlet what to do. In the current
>>> implementation, all public work efforts of all parties assigned to the
>>> publish point will be included in the calendar. The party's assignment
>>> role is ignored. The publish point's scope (public, confidential,
>>> private) is ignored. These are things I would like to change.
>>>
>>> In the new implementation, if the publish point work effort has a
>>> public scope, then anyone can view work efforts that are related to
>>> it. If the scope isn't public, then access to the related work efforts
>>> is restricted to only the parties who are assigned to the publish
>>> point. Oops, now I have a conflict with the previous implementation -
>>> where a party assignment meant to include that party's public work
>>> efforts in the calendar.
>>>
>>> Here's where I need the feedback. I need to use the publish point work
>>> effort to party assignment ROLE to control what the servlet does. A
>>> party related to the publish point in role "A" is a party whose public
>>> work efforts are included in the calendar. A party assigned to the
>>> publish point in role "B" is a party whose access to the calendar is
>>> controlled by the publish point.
>>>
>>> Looking at the current calendar roles, we have Attendee, Delegate,
>>> Host, Organizer, and Owner. The Delegate role might be appropriate for
>>> the party in role "B". I don't know what to do about the party in role
>>> "A" - should I create a new role? Something like "Calendar
>>> Participant" or "Calendar Member"?
>>
>> I think Attendee would be good but if you need to keep it for other
>> needs then Calendar Participant sounds good to me
>>
>> My 2 cts
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>>> Any feedback would be appreciated!
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Discussion: iCalendar Integration
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.
Thanks Jacques! Attendee is already defined in the RFC, so I was trying
not to use it - since that might cause confusion.
-Adrian
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@hlmksw.com>
>> I'm almost ready to commit the work I have been doing on the iCalendar
>> integration. Before I do, I would like some feedback on a particular
>> function.
>>
>> Background: One work effort serves as an iCalendar "publish point" -
>> it's not a work effort that anyone interacts with, it just contains
>> settings that tell the iCalendar servlet what to do. In the current
>> implementation, all public work efforts of all parties assigned to the
>> publish point will be included in the calendar. The party's assignment
>> role is ignored. The publish point's scope (public, confidential,
>> private) is ignored. These are things I would like to change.
>>
>> In the new implementation, if the publish point work effort has a
>> public scope, then anyone can view work efforts that are related to
>> it. If the scope isn't public, then access to the related work efforts
>> is restricted to only the parties who are assigned to the publish
>> point. Oops, now I have a conflict with the previous implementation -
>> where a party assignment meant to include that party's public work
>> efforts in the calendar.
>>
>> Here's where I need the feedback. I need to use the publish point work
>> effort to party assignment ROLE to control what the servlet does. A
>> party related to the publish point in role "A" is a party whose public
>> work efforts are included in the calendar. A party assigned to the
>> publish point in role "B" is a party whose access to the calendar is
>> controlled by the publish point.
>>
>> Looking at the current calendar roles, we have Attendee, Delegate,
>> Host, Organizer, and Owner. The Delegate role might be appropriate for
>> the party in role "B". I don't know what to do about the party in role
>> "A" - should I create a new role? Something like "Calendar
>> Participant" or "Calendar Member"?
>
> I think Attendee would be good but if you need to keep it for other
> needs then Calendar Participant sounds good to me
>
> My 2 cts
>
> Jacques
>
>
>> Any feedback would be appreciated!
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>
>
Re: Discussion: iCalendar Integration
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@hlmksw.com>
> I'm almost ready to commit the work I have been doing on the iCalendar
> integration. Before I do, I would like some feedback on a particular
> function.
>
> Background: One work effort serves as an iCalendar "publish point" -
> it's not a work effort that anyone interacts with, it just contains
> settings that tell the iCalendar servlet what to do. In the current
> implementation, all public work efforts of all parties assigned to the
> publish point will be included in the calendar. The party's assignment
> role is ignored. The publish point's scope (public, confidential,
> private) is ignored. These are things I would like to change.
>
> In the new implementation, if the publish point work effort has a public
> scope, then anyone can view work efforts that are related to it. If the
> scope isn't public, then access to the related work efforts is
> restricted to only the parties who are assigned to the publish point.
> Oops, now I have a conflict with the previous implementation - where a
> party assignment meant to include that party's public work efforts in
> the calendar.
>
> Here's where I need the feedback. I need to use the publish point work
> effort to party assignment ROLE to control what the servlet does. A
> party related to the publish point in role "A" is a party whose public
> work efforts are included in the calendar. A party assigned to the
> publish point in role "B" is a party whose access to the calendar is
> controlled by the publish point.
>
> Looking at the current calendar roles, we have Attendee, Delegate, Host,
> Organizer, and Owner. The Delegate role might be appropriate for the
> party in role "B". I don't know what to do about the party in role "A" -
> should I create a new role? Something like "Calendar Participant" or
> "Calendar Member"?
I think Attendee would be good but if you need to keep it for other needs then Calendar Participant sounds good to me
My 2 cts
Jacques
> Any feedback would be appreciated!
>
> -Adrian
>