Clarification Please

[BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

in reviewing the party services and minilanquage, I see that the
minilaquage scripts have functions that don't get put in the
org.ofbiz.party.party.PartyServices when you look them up in the
services of webtools.
So what would be the best way to expose the minilanguages:
1) created service interfaces so they show up in the webtools under a
service group
2) add a function in webtools to pick up these mini scripts
or both
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJlxnMrP3NbaWWqE4RApYhAJ9hWTXmt2bNHCgbbl3xGIGMr0KR3wCeJWob
lHn2T1aUWSuPM5PFMzDHJ2Y=
=8vB3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Clarification Please

[BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

to address between events and services, I have seen where the mini code
is used both for events and services.
so maybe we need to have something in the webtools
that shows mini code that is used as a server and/or and event.

David E Jones sent the following on 2/14/2009 11:29 AM:
> 
> On Feb 14, 2009, at 12:21 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
> 
>> in reviewing the party services and minilanquage, I see that the
>> minilaquage scripts have functions that don't get put in the
>> org.ofbiz.party.party.PartyServices when you look them up in the
>> services of webtools.
>> So what would be the best way to expose the minilanguages:
>> 1) created service interfaces so they show up in the webtools under a
>> service group
>> 2) add a function in webtools to pick up these mini scripts
>> or both
> 
> This is twice in one day you've pushed me into the position of the "be
> specific police".
> 
> Could you please be more specific, perhaps some examples of such
> methods? I don't think this is a topic that can be discussed in theory,
> well at least not in these terms, the first thing being to find the
> difference between the two sets of simple-methods you are referring to.
> For example, is one set called as service and the other called as events
> (and therefore will have no service def)?
> 
> -David
> 
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJl1D6rP3NbaWWqE4RAutmAJ9ZpdMgAuv7+Ga8FS1wAeD8kNZYVwCdGJoM
0lFQDy5MKArk7HZ2xpNAAbw=
=q3VH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Clarification Please

[BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I guess I figure anyone familiar with the code would know this.
I also find it humorous that as non specific you are in your answer you
are pointing out how I should be specific.
I was also trying to make a general statement, of policy.

applications\party\script\org\ofbiz\party\user\UserEvents.xml
has a createEmployee that does not have a Service interface
it does not show up in the services in webtools or in artifact.
it is used in the party webapps and shows up only when I do a code search.
There is a duplicate process in
applications\humanres\script\org\ofbiz\humanres\HumanResServices.xml
that does show up in the services.

My reason is I want to add some functionality and don't want to
duplicate existing work, as has been done above.
I also would like to put some energy to merge the two so they function
as one for both party and humanres.




David E Jones sent the following on 2/14/2009 11:29 AM:
> 
> On Feb 14, 2009, at 12:21 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
> 
>> in reviewing the party services and minilanquage, I see that the
>> minilaquage scripts have functions that don't get put in the
>> org.ofbiz.party.party.PartyServices when you look them up in the
>> services of webtools.
>> So what would be the best way to expose the minilanguages:
>> 1) created service interfaces so they show up in the webtools under a
>> service group
>> 2) add a function in webtools to pick up these mini scripts
>> or both
> 
> This is twice in one day you've pushed me into the position of the "be
> specific police".
> 
> Could you please be more specific, perhaps some examples of such
> methods? I don't think this is a topic that can be discussed in theory,
> well at least not in these terms, the first thing being to find the
> difference between the two sets of simple-methods you are referring to.
> For example, is one set called as service and the other called as events
> (and therefore will have no service def)?
> 
> -David
> 
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJlyS6rP3NbaWWqE4RAqONAKDM6Al9v60qUh2GXJNZDXA0H9jCswCg0oFw
DL/Pd7O+5ftRRP2BtyqDD00=
=KTmv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Clarification Please

[David E Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

On Feb 14, 2009, at 12:21 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:

> in reviewing the party services and minilanquage, I see that the
> minilaquage scripts have functions that don't get put in the
> org.ofbiz.party.party.PartyServices when you look them up in the
> services of webtools.
> So what would be the best way to expose the minilanguages:
> 1) created service interfaces so they show up in the webtools under a
> service group
> 2) add a function in webtools to pick up these mini scripts
> or both

This is twice in one day you've pushed me into the position of the "be  
specific police".

Could you please be more specific, perhaps some examples of such  
methods? I don't think this is a topic that can be discussed in  
theory, well at least not in these terms, the first thing being to  
find the difference between the two sets of simple-methods you are  
referring to. For example, is one set called as service and the other  
called as events (and therefore will have no service def)?

-David