You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to user@ofbiz.apache.org by "Michael Xu (xudong)" <do...@wizitsoft.com> on 2009/11/24 14:07:00 UTC

about using ofbiz as a platform

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

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by "Michael Xu (xudong)" <do...@wizitsoft.com>.

hi Adrian,

Yes, I agree with you for most issues. However, in my opinion this one seems
special, which might cause many fundamental changes. I guess a top-down
approach is more practical.

--
Regards,
Michael Xu (xudong)
www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 0135
9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096


On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com> 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 <ch...@gmail.com> 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) <do...@wizitsoft.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> 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)
>>>>> <do...@wizitsoft.com>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) <
>>>>>> dong.xu@wizitsoft.com> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Christopher Snow <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>.

Hi Michael,

We need to:

- decide whether to create a new component for managing accounts and
permissions or use webtools.
- decide on what content should go into these screens.

As mentioned by Jacopo, some of this may have already been done by Adrian:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1868

Cheers,

Chris


Michael Xu (xudong) wrote:
> hi Chris,
>
> Not sure what kind of help you need for next step. I would love to help if I
> can.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Michael Xu (xudong)
> www.wizitsoft.com
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Michael Xu (xudong)
> <do...@wizitsoft.com>wrote:
>
>   
>> hi Chris,
>>
>> I think account and permission management are enough for framework and
>> party/organization probably should not be in the scope of framework.
>>
>> Using LDAP is definitely a good idea. But I think that should be only a
>> option, because not all customers have LDAP.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Michael Xu (xudong)

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by "Michael Xu (xudong)" <do...@wizitsoft.com>.

hi Chris,

Not sure what kind of help you need for next step. I would love to help if I
can.

--
Regards,
Michael Xu (xudong)
www.wizitsoft.com


On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Michael Xu (xudong)
<do...@wizitsoft.com>wrote:

> hi Chris,
>
> I think account and permission management are enough for framework and
> party/organization probably should not be in the scope of framework.
>
> Using LDAP is definitely a good idea. But I think that should be only a
> option, because not all customers have LDAP.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Michael Xu (xudong)
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Christopher Snow <
> snowch@snowconsulting.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> Does the framework just need user account and permission management? or,
>> does it need party/organisation management too?
>>
>> Perhaps even using an external framework like ldap would be better for
>> managing the organisational structures, user accounts and permissions?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> Michael Xu (xudong) wrote:
>> > hi Chris,
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > For me, I need user, organization, role, permission functionalities from
>> > party management. But I think you are right that maybe we need a more
>> > elegant party management from framework perspective. Or maybe we even
>> don't
>> > need party in the framework. (Just like JIRA did. JIRA implemented its
>> own
>> > user/permission/role)
>> >
>> > --
>> > Regards,
>> > Michael Xu (xudong)
>> > www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135
>> 0135
>> > 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Christopher Snow <
>> > snowch@snowconsulting.co.uk> 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
>> >>
>>
>
>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by "Michael Xu (xudong)" <do...@wizitsoft.com>.

hi Chris,

I think account and permission management are enough for framework and
party/organization probably should not be in the scope of framework.

Using LDAP is definitely a good idea. But I think that should be only a
option, because not all customers have LDAP.

--
Regards,
Michael Xu (xudong)


On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Christopher Snow <
snowch@snowconsulting.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> Does the framework just need user account and permission management? or,
> does it need party/organisation management too?
>
> Perhaps even using an external framework like ldap would be better for
> managing the organisational structures, user accounts and permissions?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> Michael Xu (xudong) wrote:
> > hi Chris,
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > For me, I need user, organization, role, permission functionalities from
> > party management. But I think you are right that maybe we need a more
> > elegant party management from framework perspective. Or maybe we even
> don't
> > need party in the framework. (Just like JIRA did. JIRA implemented its
> own
> > user/permission/role)
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Michael Xu (xudong)
> > www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135
> 0135
> > 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Christopher Snow <
> > snowch@snowconsulting.co.uk> 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
> >>
>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.

Thanks to keep this up to date Bruno

Jacques

From: "Bruno Busco" <br...@gmail.com>
>I have created a page for this:
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution
> 
> The JIRA issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1867 can
> still be used to group toghether all issues related to this task.
> 
> Please fill free to add whatever I missed and link the JIRA issues you
> know are related to this.
> 
> -Bruno
> 
> 2009/12/7 Christopher Snow <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>:
>> 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 <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 <ch...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> 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) <do...@wizitsoft.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>>>> <do...@wizitsoft.com>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) <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dong.xu@wizitsoft.com> 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
>>
>>
>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>.

I have created a page for this:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Framework-only+distribution

The JIRA issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1867 can
still be used to group toghether all issues related to this task.

Please fill free to add whatever I missed and link the JIRA issues you
know are related to this.

-Bruno

2009/12/7 Christopher Snow <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>:
> 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 <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 <ch...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> 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) <do...@wizitsoft.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>>> <do...@wizitsoft.com>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) <
>>>>>>>>>>>> dong.xu@wizitsoft.com> 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
>
>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by "Michael Xu (xudong)" <do...@wizitsoft.com>.

I agree with Jacopo. Basically each ofbiz component can define its own admin
stuff (like user management in security). In terms of how to show those
stuff, that should be left to framework users. Maybe some users prefer to
aggregate all admin stuff from different components into webtools or
MyPortals. Maybe some users prefer to put admin stuff in each component.

Just an idea: If webtools is the central place for administration, can we
implement it like MyPortal that webtools can automatically load admin stuff
from different components?

--
Regards,
Michael Xu (xudong)
www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 0135
9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096


On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappellato@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:

> Hi Christopher,
>
> On Dec 10, 2009, at 9:43 AM, Christopher Snow wrote:
>
> > Hi Jacopo,
> >
> > I was originally thinking about putting this stuff in the webtools until
> > I thought that user account management may be done by a user that is not
> > a system administrator (e.g. helpdesk level one support).  Webtools
> > seems to be more system administration type stuff.
> >
>
> The webtools could provide basic interface for user management for
> administrators; this doesn't preclude other components from implementing
> custom and process oriented screens for user management (like the helpdesk
> component you mention); in fact this is already happening in the ecommerce
> and party components (and should not change); however helpdesk etc.. will
> need much more than users and roles; they will probably need persons,
> parties etc...
>
>
> > What are the pros and cons of using a separate component versus using
> > webtools for this functionality?
> >
>
> This is not a big deal, we can do both ways. But instead of a new component
> we should consider adding a new webapp to an existing one (it could be the
> "security" one).
>
> Jacopo
>
> > Many thanks,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.

On Dec 10, 2009, at 9:53 AM, Christopher Snow wrote:

> Hi Michael,
> 
> Does the framework just need user account and permission management? or,
> does it need party/organisation management too?

The framework just needs user/security; parties, persons and organizations cannot be referenced by the framework level components.

Jacopo


> 
> Perhaps even using an external framework like ldap would be better for
> managing the organisational structures, user accounts and permissions?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris
> 
> Michael Xu (xudong) wrote:
>> hi Chris,
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> For me, I need user, organization, role, permission functionalities from
>> party management. But I think you are right that maybe we need a more
>> elegant party management from framework perspective. Or maybe we even don't
>> need party in the framework. (Just like JIRA did. JIRA implemented its own
>> user/permission/role)
>> 
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Michael Xu (xudong)
>> www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 0135
>> 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Christopher Snow <
>> snowch@snowconsulting.co.uk> 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
>>>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.

Hi Michael, Chris

As Scott said, I also wonder if Adrian did not begin something more open (Atlassian Crowd, etc.). I'd wait his answer because I 
found only this https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-811 related to specialpurpose/ldap

Jacques
()  ascii ribbon campaign against HTML e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org


From: "Christopher Snow" <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Does the framework just need user account and permission management? or,
> does it need party/organisation management too?
>
> Perhaps even using an external framework like ldap would be better for
> managing the organisational structures, user accounts and permissions?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> Michael Xu (xudong) wrote:
>> hi Chris,
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> For me, I need user, organization, role, permission functionalities from
>> party management. But I think you are right that maybe we need a more
>> elegant party management from framework perspective. Or maybe we even don't
>> need party in the framework. (Just like JIRA did. JIRA implemented its own
>> user/permission/role)
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Michael Xu (xudong)
>> www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 0135
>> 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Christopher Snow <
>> snowch@snowconsulting.co.uk> 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
>>>
>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Christopher Snow <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>.

Hi Michael,

Does the framework just need user account and permission management? or,
does it need party/organisation management too?

Perhaps even using an external framework like ldap would be better for
managing the organisational structures, user accounts and permissions?

Cheers,

Chris

Michael Xu (xudong) wrote:
> hi Chris,
>
> Thanks.
>
> For me, I need user, organization, role, permission functionalities from
> party management. But I think you are right that maybe we need a more
> elegant party management from framework perspective. Or maybe we even don't
> need party in the framework. (Just like JIRA did. JIRA implemented its own
> user/permission/role)
>
> --
> Regards,
> Michael Xu (xudong)
> www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 0135
> 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Christopher Snow <
> snowch@snowconsulting.co.uk> 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
>>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by "Michael Xu (xudong)" <do...@wizitsoft.com>.

hi Chris,

Thanks.

For me, I need user, organization, role, permission functionalities from
party management. But I think you are right that maybe we need a more
elegant party management from framework perspective. Or maybe we even don't
need party in the framework. (Just like JIRA did. JIRA implemented its own
user/permission/role)

--
Regards,
Michael Xu (xudong)
www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 0135
9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096


On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Christopher Snow <
snowch@snowconsulting.co.uk> 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 <
> > snowch@snowconsulting.co.uk> 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 <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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 <ch...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>> 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) <do...@wizitsoft.com>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <do...@wizitsoft.com>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) <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> dong.xu@wizitsoft.com> 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
>
>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.

Hi Christopher,

On Dec 10, 2009, at 9:43 AM, Christopher Snow wrote:

> Hi Jacopo,
> 
> I was originally thinking about putting this stuff in the webtools until
> I thought that user account management may be done by a user that is not
> a system administrator (e.g. helpdesk level one support).  Webtools
> seems to be more system administration type stuff.
> 

The webtools could provide basic interface for user management for administrators; this doesn't preclude other components from implementing custom and process oriented screens for user management (like the helpdesk component you mention); in fact this is already happening in the ecommerce and party components (and should not change); however helpdesk etc.. will need much more than users and roles; they will probably need persons, parties etc... 

> What are the pros and cons of using a separate component versus using
> webtools for this functionality?
> 

This is not a big deal, we can do both ways. But instead of a new component we should consider adding a new webapp to an existing one (it could be the "security" one).

Jacopo

> Many thanks,
> 
> Chris
> 
> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Christopher Snow <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>.

Hi Jacopo,

I was originally thinking about putting this stuff in the webtools until
I thought that user account management may be done by a user that is not
a system administrator (e.g. helpdesk level one support).  Webtools
seems to be more system administration type stuff.

What are the pros and cons of using a separate component versus using
webtools for this functionality?

Many thanks,

Chris

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
>>
>>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Christopher Snow <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>.

Adrian, thanks for the feedback - jira created OFBIZ-3329.

Adrian Crum wrote:
> That looks like a good candidate for a Jira issue.
>
> -Adrian
>
> Christopher Snow wrote:
>> I've just tried commenting out all components except commonext on trunk.
>>
>> I  ran the ant tasks create-admin-user-login, then run and then tried to
>> access the url https://localhost:8443/webtools/
>>
>> I received the following error message:
>>
>>     org.ofbiz.widget.screen.ScreenRenderException: Error rendering
>> screen [component://common/widget/CommonScreens.xml#GlobalDecorator]:
>> org.ofbiz.base.util.GeneralException: Error running Groovy script at
>> location [component://commonext/script/changeOrgPartyId.groovy] (Could
>> not find definition for entity name PartyAcctgPrefAndGroup) (Error
>> running Groovy script at location
>> [component://commonext/script/changeOrgPartyId.groovy] (Could not find
>> definition for entity name PartyAcctgPrefAndGroup))
>>
>> It seems that commonext has a dependency on the party component.
>>
>>
>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> The work would have to be done on the trunk. Releases only get bug
>>> fixes.
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>> Christopher Snow wrote:
>>>> Hi Adrian,
>>>>
>>>> Would there be any reason the work couldn't be done on trunk?  I was
>>>> just thinking of the next release (whenever that is) being one step
>>>> closer to framework separation?
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>


-- 
Chris Snow - CEng MBCS CITP MBA (Tech Mgmt) (Open) CISSP

Tel: 01453 890660
Mob: 07944 880950
Www: www.snowconsulting.co.uk

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.

That looks like a good candidate for a Jira issue.

-Adrian

Christopher Snow wrote:
> I've just tried commenting out all components except commonext on trunk.
> 
> I  ran the ant tasks create-admin-user-login, then run and then tried to
> access the url https://localhost:8443/webtools/
> 
> I received the following error message:
> 
>     org.ofbiz.widget.screen.ScreenRenderException: Error rendering
> screen [component://common/widget/CommonScreens.xml#GlobalDecorator]:
> org.ofbiz.base.util.GeneralException: Error running Groovy script at
> location [component://commonext/script/changeOrgPartyId.groovy] (Could
> not find definition for entity name PartyAcctgPrefAndGroup) (Error
> running Groovy script at location
> [component://commonext/script/changeOrgPartyId.groovy] (Could not find
> definition for entity name PartyAcctgPrefAndGroup))
> 
> It seems that commonext has a dependency on the party component.
> 
> 
> Adrian Crum wrote:
>> The work would have to be done on the trunk. Releases only get bug fixes.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> Christopher Snow wrote:
>>> Hi Adrian,
>>>
>>> Would there be any reason the work couldn't be done on trunk?  I was
>>> just thinking of the next release (whenever that is) being one step
>>> closer to framework separation?
>>>
>>> Many thanks,
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
> 
>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Christopher Snow <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>.

I've just tried commenting out all components except commonext on trunk.

I  ran the ant tasks create-admin-user-login, then run and then tried to
access the url https://localhost:8443/webtools/

I received the following error message:

    org.ofbiz.widget.screen.ScreenRenderException: Error rendering
screen [component://common/widget/CommonScreens.xml#GlobalDecorator]:
org.ofbiz.base.util.GeneralException: Error running Groovy script at
location [component://commonext/script/changeOrgPartyId.groovy] (Could
not find definition for entity name PartyAcctgPrefAndGroup) (Error
running Groovy script at location
[component://commonext/script/changeOrgPartyId.groovy] (Could not find
definition for entity name PartyAcctgPrefAndGroup))

It seems that commonext has a dependency on the party component.


Adrian Crum wrote:
> The work would have to be done on the trunk. Releases only get bug fixes.
>
> -Adrian
>
> Christopher Snow wrote:
>> Hi Adrian,
>>
>> Would there be any reason the work couldn't be done on trunk?  I was
>> just thinking of the next release (whenever that is) being one step
>> closer to framework separation?
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>


-- 
Chris Snow - CEng MBCS CITP MBA (Tech Mgmt) (Open) CISSP

Tel: 01453 890660
Mob: 07944 880950
Www: www.snowconsulting.co.uk

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.

The work would have to be done on the trunk. Releases only get bug fixes.

-Adrian

Christopher Snow wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
> 
> Would there be any reason the work couldn't be done on trunk?  I was
> just thinking of the next release (whenever that is) being one step
> closer to framework separation?
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Chris
> 
> Adrian Crum wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Christopher Snow <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>.

Hi Adrian,

Would there be any reason the work couldn't be done on trunk?  I was
just thinking of the next release (whenever that is) being one step
closer to framework separation?

Many thanks,

Chris

Adrian Crum wrote:
> 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
>>
>>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.

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 <
>>> snowch@snowconsulting.co.uk> 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 <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 <ch...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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) <do...@wizitsoft.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <do...@wizitsoft.com>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) <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dong.xu@wizitsoft.com> 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 
>>
> 
>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.

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 <
>> snowch@snowconsulting.co.uk> 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 <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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 <ch...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> 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) <do...@wizitsoft.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <do...@wizitsoft.com>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) <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dong.xu@wizitsoft.com> 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 
>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Christopher Snow <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>.

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 <
> snowch@snowconsulting.co.uk> 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 <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> 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 <ch...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> 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) <do...@wizitsoft.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                       
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>>>> <do...@wizitsoft.com>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) <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dong.xu@wizitsoft.com> 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

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by "Michael Xu (xudong)" <do...@wizitsoft.com>.

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 <
snowch@snowconsulting.co.uk> 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 <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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 <ch...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> 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) <do...@wizitsoft.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>>> <do...@wizitsoft.com>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) <
>>>>>>>>>>>> dong.xu@wizitsoft.com> 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
>
>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Christopher Snow <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>.

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 <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>:
>>  
>>> 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 <ch...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> 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) <do...@wizitsoft.com>:
>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>> <do...@wizitsoft.com>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) <
>>>>>>>>>>> dong.xu@wizitsoft.com> 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

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Christopher Snow <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>.

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 <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>:
>   
>> 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 <ch...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> 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) <do...@wizitsoft.com>:
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>> <do...@wizitsoft.com>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) <
>>>>>>>>>> dong.xu@wizitsoft.com> 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

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>.

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 <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>:
> 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 <ch...@gmail.com>
>>>>> 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) <do...@wizitsoft.com>:
>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>> <do...@wizitsoft.com>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) <
>>>>>>>>> dong.xu@wizitsoft.com> 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
>
>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Christopher Snow <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>.

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 <ch...@gmail.com>
>>>> 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) <do...@wizitsoft.com>:
>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>> <do...@wizitsoft.com>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) <
>>>>>>>> dong.xu@wizitsoft.com> 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

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.

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 <ch...@gmail.com>  
>>> 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) <do...@wizitsoft.com>:
>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>> <do...@wizitsoft.com>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) <
>>>>>>> dong.xu@wizitsoft.com> 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.

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by chris snow <ch...@gmail.com>.

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 <ch...@gmail.com> 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) <do...@wizitsoft.com>:
>>>>> 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)
>>>>> <do...@wizitsoft.com>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) <
>>>>>> dong.xu@wizitsoft.com> 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.

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.

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 <ch...@gmail.com> 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) <do...@wizitsoft.com>:
>>>> 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)
>>>> <do...@wizitsoft.com>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) <
>>>>> dong.xu@wizitsoft.com> 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.
>>
>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by "Michael Xu (xudong)" <do...@wizitsoft.com>.

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 <ch...@gmail.com> 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) <do...@wizitsoft.com>:
> >> 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)
> >> <do...@wizitsoft.com>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) <
> >>> dong.xu@wizitsoft.com> 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.
>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by chris snow <ch...@gmail.com>.

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) <do...@wizitsoft.com>:
>> 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)
>> <do...@wizitsoft.com>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) <
>>> dong.xu@wizitsoft.com> 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.

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by "Michael Xu (xudong)" <do...@wizitsoft.com>.

hi Bruno,

Thanks for your reply. I wish I could make it by myself. However, it turns
out too challenging for me. I think it is more piratical if one or more
committer could lead the overall process.

At this moment, what I can suggest is that the current big ofbiz might need
to be split into sub projects, like framework, ERP, CRM, eCommerce, etc.

--
Regards,
Michael Xu (xudong)
www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 0135
9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096


On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com> 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) <do...@wizitsoft.com>:
> > 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)
> > <do...@wizitsoft.com>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) <
> >> dong.xu@wizitsoft.com> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by "Michael Xu (xudong)" <do...@wizitsoft.com>.

hi Bruno,

Thanks for your reply. I wish I could make it by myself. However, it turns
out too challenging for me. I think it is more piratical if one or more
committer could lead the overall process.

At this moment, what I can suggest is that the current big ofbiz might need
to be split into sub projects, like framework, ERP, CRM, eCommerce, etc.

--
Regards,
Michael Xu (xudong)
www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 0135
9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096


On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com> 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) <do...@wizitsoft.com>:
> > 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)
> > <do...@wizitsoft.com>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) <
> >> dong.xu@wizitsoft.com> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>.

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) <do...@wizitsoft.com>:
> 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)
> <do...@wizitsoft.com>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) <
>> dong.xu@wizitsoft.com> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.

Thanks Michael,

I have added this comment for you (it's better to keep things together)
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies?focusedCommentId=9373263#comment-9373263

Jacques

From: "Michael Xu (xudong)" <do...@wizitsoft.com>
To: <us...@ofbiz.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: about using ofbiz as a platform


> 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)
> <do...@wizitsoft.com>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) <
>> dong.xu@wizitsoft.com> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by "Michael Xu (xudong)" <do...@wizitsoft.com>.

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)
<do...@wizitsoft.com>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) <
> dong.xu@wizitsoft.com> 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
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by "Michael Xu (xudong)" <do...@wizitsoft.com>.

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)
<do...@wizitsoft.com>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
>
>
>

Re: about using ofbiz as a platform

Posted by Christopher Snow <sn...@snowconsulting.co.uk>.

This question feels like it should be a FAQ...

Michael Xu (xudong) 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
>
>   


-- 
Chris Snow - CEng MBCS CITP MBA (Tech Mgmt) (Open) CISSP

Tel: 01453 890660
Mob: 07944 880950
Www: www.snowconsulting.co.uk