You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> on 2009/01/04 18:02:54 UTC
Re: svn commit: r729396 [1/2] - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/accounting/config/ applications/accounting/entitydef/ applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/invoice/ applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/payment/ applications/accou
Hi Bruno,
these service calls are part of the quickInitDataWarehouse method that
is just a util method to simplify the BI setup for demo purposes: I
know this is not ideal and I agree that the method should be moved
outside of the framework.
But maybe for now we could leave it as is and just add a comment to
it... it is really useful in demos and testing.
Jacopo
On Dec 26, 2008, at 8:53 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
> That's fine,
> we should then understand how to resolve some dependencies i.e.
> service calls like:
> <call-service service-name="loadAllProductsInProductDimension"
> in-map-name="inMap"/>
> or
> <call-service service-name="loadSalesInvoiceFact"
> in-map-name="inMap"/>
> that are defined in catalog and accounting components that (I guess)
> will not part of the framework.
>
> -Bruno
>
> 2008/12/26 David E. Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>
>> I think you misunderstand. The main bi stuff is just a tool, and
>> really
>> belongs in the framework. Built on top of those tools are OOTB star
>> schema data models that can be used along with the OOTB operational
>> data
>> model. Those belong with the base applications, along with reports
>> that
>> are more generic in nature. Either way, most of the bi stuff is
>> core to
>> OFBiz, and an important part of it (especially the star-schema and
>> data
>> warehouse related parts), and is certainly not a peripheral add-on as
>> being in specialpurpose would imply.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> Bruno Busco wrote:
>>> But maybe is better to move files using SVN in order to maintain
>>> history...
>>>
>>>
>>> 2008/12/25 Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>:
>>>> If needed I can send a patch for this right now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2008/12/25 Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>:
>>>>> David,
>>>>> I was trying to move the BI folder from framework to
>>>>> specialpurpose
>>>>> and, once changed the build.xml and component-load.xml files,
>>>>> it seems to build and work well.
>>>>> Could we move it in order to simplify the framework-only deploy?
>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>
>>>>> 2008/12/25 David E. Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>>>> The placement of BI in the diagram is based on the original
>>>>>> implementation, which was not part of the framework as it is
>>>>>> now. BI is
>>>>>> kind of a funny one and while there are tools for BI in the
>>>>>> framework,
>>>>>> and base data structures within the base applications, it can
>>>>>> really
>>>>>> exist in applications, specialpurpose, or hot-deploy/add-on
>>>>>> components.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>> Thank you David,
>>>>>>> I did not see this page before and it helps very much.
>>>>>>> I will take this as a Christmas present from you. ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, so this confirms that party should be out of the
>>>>>>> framework and we
>>>>>>> should remove all dependences on it from the framework (not
>>>>>>> adding
>>>>>>> more).
>>>>>>> Then I see that the BI also is out of the framework (and this
>>>>>>> is ok)
>>>>>>> but in my framework-only installation that I got deleting the
>>>>>>> applications and specialourpose folders from a full trunk
>>>>>>> checkout BI
>>>>>>> is there but of couurse not working.
>>>>>>> Could we think of moving BI files from framework to
>>>>>>> specialpurpose folder?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 David E Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The decision has already been made, and even documented (a
>>>>>>>> miracle, yes I
>>>>>>>> know). For details see:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now we just need to stick to it... so thanks for bringing
>>>>>>>> this up Bruno.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 25, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>> this change sets an additional dependence of the framework
>>>>>>>>> from the
>>>>>>>>> Party application.
>>>>>>>>> We should definitively take a decition on how to separate
>>>>>>>>> the framework.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 <ha...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed Dec 24 22:26:14 2008
>>>>>>>>>> New Revision: 729396
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=729396&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>> OFBIZ-2097: show organizationPartyId in header(can be set in
>>>>>>>>>> preferences), rewrote financial history to show currencies,
>>>>>>>>>> invoice/p[aymentworker now can show in actual and
>>>>>>>>>> organizationparty currency
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Added:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-INF/
>>>>>>>>>> actions/party/UnAppliedInvoicesForParty.groovy
>>>>>>>>>> (with props)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-INF/
>>>>>>>>>> actions/party/UnAppliedPaymentsForParty.groovy
>>>>>>>>>> (with props)
>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/config/
>>>>>>>>>> AccountingUiLabels.xml
>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/entitydef/entitymodel.xml
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>>>> accounting/invoice/InvoiceWorker.java
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>>>> accounting/payment/PaymentWorker.java
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/WEB-
>>>>>>>>>> INF/actions/invoice/EditInvoice.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/
>>>>>>>>>> invoice/InvoiceForms.xml
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/
>>>>>>>>>> payment/PaymentForms.xml
>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/widget/InvoiceScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/widget/Menus.xml
>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-INF/
>>>>>>>>>> actions/party/PartyFinancialHistory.groovy
>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/party/
>>>>>>>>>> PartyForms.xml
>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/widget/partymgr/
>>>>>>>>>> PartyScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/widget/partymgr/
>>>>>>>>>> ProfileScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonUiLabels.xml
>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/webcommon/includes/header.ftl
>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/widget/CommonScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
Re: svn commit: r729396 [1/2] - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/accounting/config/ applications/accounting/entitydef/ applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/invoice/ applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/payment/ applications/accou
Posted by David E Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On Jan 29, 2009, at 3:24 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>
> On Jan 26, 2009, at 8:03 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> David, I totally agree, this is the plan. By the way, I already
>>> did the split, apart for the last service named
>>> quickInitDataWarehouse that I am not sure where to move... but it
>>> can be removed as well, for now it is just easier to test the BI
>>> features with it.
>>
>> That service is a good example of one that is a handy feature, and
>> that would be nice to always have, but written as-is would have
>> undesirable dependencies. The first solution that comes to mind is
>> to parameterize it in a way that higher level components can add
>> to, preferably without anything changed in any framework
>> component... which means the database might be most natural place
>> for the info (like some kind of list of services to run to init
>> data warehouse data).
>>
>> -David
>>
>
> This is an interesting idea... each component could "register" the
> init services required by its bi reports using the Enumeration entity.
> And then the BI component will just read the records and run the
> services associated to them. Or we could create JobSandox entries
> for the services, and just let the BI component to run them (reading
> the jobId from the Enumeration).
>
> Does it make sense?
Yes, that makes sense. Don't be afraid of a new entity though. They
are easy to define and then we don't have to use something that
doesn't fit well with this...
-David
Re: svn commit: r729396 [1/2] - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/accounting/config/ applications/accounting/entitydef/ applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/invoice/ applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/payment/ applications/accou
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On Jan 26, 2009, at 8:03 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>
>> David, I totally agree, this is the plan. By the way, I already did
>> the split, apart for the last service named quickInitDataWarehouse
>> that I am not sure where to move... but it can be removed as well,
>> for now it is just easier to test the BI features with it.
>
> That service is a good example of one that is a handy feature, and
> that would be nice to always have, but written as-is would have
> undesirable dependencies. The first solution that comes to mind is
> to parameterize it in a way that higher level components can add to,
> preferably without anything changed in any framework component...
> which means the database might be most natural place for the info
> (like some kind of list of services to run to init data warehouse
> data).
>
> -David
>
This is an interesting idea... each component could "register" the
init services required by its bi reports using the Enumeration entity.
And then the BI component will just read the records and run the
services associated to them. Or we could create JobSandox entries for
the services, and just let the BI component to run them (reading the
jobId from the Enumeration).
Does it make sense?
Jacopo
Re: svn commit: r729396 [1/2] - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/accounting/config/ applications/accounting/entitydef/ applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/invoice/ applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/payment/ applications/accou
Posted by David E Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On Jan 26, 2009, at 3:09 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>
> On Jan 26, 2009, at 7:14 AM, David E Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> I think of the BI stuff as being very like where we are going with
>> themes and portal and such. The framework has infrastructure and
>> the applications and such plugin to that infrastructure (through
>> whatever means make the most sense).
>>
>> For BI that would mean all of the tools (including UI) go in the
>> framework, as long as they do not depend on anything in
>> applications, and that data and services and more custom UI and so
>> on go in the applications or specialpurpose components.
>>
>> That will probably require splitting some of the POC stuff that
>> Jacopo did into different components...
>>
>
> David, I totally agree, this is the plan. By the way, I already did
> the split, apart for the last service named quickInitDataWarehouse
> that I am not sure where to move... but it can be removed as well,
> for now it is just easier to test the BI features with it.
That service is a good example of one that is a handy feature, and
that would be nice to always have, but written as-is would have
undesirable dependencies. The first solution that comes to mind is to
parameterize it in a way that higher level components can add to,
preferably without anything changed in any framework component...
which means the database might be most natural place for the info
(like some kind of list of services to run to init data warehouse data).
-David
Re: svn commit: r729396 [1/2] - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/accounting/config/ applications/accounting/entitydef/ applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/invoice/ applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/payment/ applications/accou
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On Jan 26, 2009, at 7:14 AM, David E Jones wrote:
>
> I think of the BI stuff as being very like where we are going with
> themes and portal and such. The framework has infrastructure and the
> applications and such plugin to that infrastructure (through
> whatever means make the most sense).
>
> For BI that would mean all of the tools (including UI) go in the
> framework, as long as they do not depend on anything in
> applications, and that data and services and more custom UI and so
> on go in the applications or specialpurpose components.
>
> That will probably require splitting some of the POC stuff that
> Jacopo did into different components...
>
David, I totally agree, this is the plan. By the way, I already did
the split, apart for the last service named quickInitDataWarehouse
that I am not sure where to move... but it can be removed as well, for
now it is just easier to test the BI features with it.
Jacopo
> -David
>
>
> On Jan 23, 2009, at 4:42 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>
>> I would really prefer to keep it in the framework and just move the
>> quickInitDataWarehouse (demo) service to somewhere else... any of
>> the existing applications' components would be fine.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Jan 5, 2009, at 2:11 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>
>>> I have read David's post and I understood that having BI in
>>> specialpurpose was not correct because it is a core module for an
>>> ERP.
>>> From this I thought that having it in application could be ok and
>>> still have the framework easily isolable.
>>> -Bruno
>>>
>>> 2009/1/5 BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> I think if you read davids comments included, that is the reason.
>>>> Framework you can have dependencies on,
>>>> Application you can not have framework depend on applications.
>>>>
>>>> Bruno Busco sent the following on 1/4/2009 1:48 PM:
>>>>> Hi Jacopo,
>>>>> I have moved the "bi" folder from the framework to
>>>>> "application" (not
>>>>> specialpurpose) and changed build.xml and component-load.xml.
>>>>> It seems to me that it works well there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there any specific reasons for having it in the framework
>>>>> folder
>>>>> and not moving to "application" folder?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>
>>>>> 2009/1/4 Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>>>> Hi Bruno,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> these service calls are part of the quickInitDataWarehouse
>>>>>> method that is
>>>>>> just a util method to simplify the BI setup for demo purposes:
>>>>>> I know this
>>>>>> is not ideal and I agree that the method should be moved
>>>>>> outside of the
>>>>>> framework.
>>>>>> But maybe for now we could leave it as is and just add a
>>>>>> comment to it... it
>>>>>> is really useful in demos and testing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 26, 2008, at 8:53 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's fine,
>>>>>>> we should then understand how to resolve some dependencies i.e.
>>>>>>> service calls like:
>>>>>>> <call-service service-
>>>>>>> name="loadAllProductsInProductDimension"
>>>>>>> in-map-name="inMap"/>
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> <call-service service-name="loadSalesInvoiceFact"
>>>>>>> in-map-name="inMap"/>
>>>>>>> that are defined in catalog and accounting components that (I
>>>>>>> guess)
>>>>>>> will not part of the framework.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2008/12/26 David E. Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>>>>>> I think you misunderstand. The main bi stuff is just a tool,
>>>>>>>> and really
>>>>>>>> belongs in the framework. Built on top of those tools are
>>>>>>>> OOTB star
>>>>>>>> schema data models that can be used along with the OOTB
>>>>>>>> operational data
>>>>>>>> model. Those belong with the base applications, along with
>>>>>>>> reports that
>>>>>>>> are more generic in nature. Either way, most of the bi stuff
>>>>>>>> is core to
>>>>>>>> OFBiz, and an important part of it (especially the star-
>>>>>>>> schema and data
>>>>>>>> warehouse related parts), and is certainly not a peripheral
>>>>>>>> add-on as
>>>>>>>> being in specialpurpose would imply.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>>>> But maybe is better to move files using SVN in order to
>>>>>>>>> maintain
>>>>>>>>> history...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>> If needed I can send a patch for this right now.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>>> I was trying to move the BI folder from framework to
>>>>>>>>>>> specialpurpose
>>>>>>>>>>> and, once changed the build.xml and component-load.xml
>>>>>>>>>>> files,
>>>>>>>>>>> it seems to build and work well.
>>>>>>>>>>> Could we move it in order to simplify the framework-only
>>>>>>>>>>> deploy?
>>>>>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 David E. Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The placement of BI in the diagram is based on the original
>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation, which was not part of the framework as it
>>>>>>>>>>>> is now. BI
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of a funny one and while there are tools for BI in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> framework,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and base data structures within the base applications, it
>>>>>>>>>>>> can really
>>>>>>>>>>>> exist in applications, specialpurpose, or hot-deploy/add-on
>>>>>>>>>>>> components.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you David,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not see this page before and it helps very much.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will take this as a Christmas present from you. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, so this confirms that party should be out of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should remove all dependences on it from the framework
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (not adding
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then I see that the BI also is out of the framework (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is ok)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but in my framework-only installation that I got
>>>>>>>>>>>>> deleting the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications and specialourpose folders from a full
>>>>>>>>>>>>> trunk checkout
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BI
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is there but of couurse not working.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could we think of moving BI files from framework to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specialpurpose
>>>>>>>>>>>>> folder?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 David E Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The decision has already been made, and even documented
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a miracle,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know). For details see:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now we just need to stick to it... so thanks for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bringing this up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruno.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 25, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this change sets an additional dependence of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Party application.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We should definitively take a decition on how to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 <ha...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed Dec 24 22:26:14 2008
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New Revision: 729396
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=729396&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OFBIZ-2097: show organizationPartyId in header(can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferences), rewrote financial history to show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currencies,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invoice/p[aymentworker now can show in actual and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organizationparty currency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Added:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INF/actions/party/UnAppliedInvoicesForParty.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (with props)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INF/actions/party/UnAppliedPaymentsForParty.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (with props)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/config/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AccountingUiLabels.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/entitydef/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entitymodel.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accounting/invoice/InvoiceWorker.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accounting/payment/PaymentWorker.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WEB-INF/actions/invoice/EditInvoice.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invoice/InvoiceForms.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> payment/PaymentForms.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/widget/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> InvoiceScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/widget/Menus.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entitymodel.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INF/actions/party/PartyFinancialHistory.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/party/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PartyForms.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/widget/partymgr/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PartyScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/widget/partymgr/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ProfileScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonUiLabels.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/webcommon/includes/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> header.ftl
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/widget/CommonScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
>>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>>>
>>>> iD8DBQFJYV4OrP3NbaWWqE4RApKFAKCHbPfHV8qwnPhdUvVdO6OiGhuejACbBaQS
>>>> m2jKte9yyaZuQ3HEhoOpxwU=
>>>> =bFu4
>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>>
>>
>
Re: svn commit: r729396 [1/2] - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/accounting/config/ applications/accounting/entitydef/ applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/invoice/ applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/payment/ applications/accou
Posted by David E Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
I think of the BI stuff as being very like where we are going with
themes and portal and such. The framework has infrastructure and the
applications and such plugin to that infrastructure (through whatever
means make the most sense).
For BI that would mean all of the tools (including UI) go in the
framework, as long as they do not depend on anything in applications,
and that data and services and more custom UI and so on go in the
applications or specialpurpose components.
That will probably require splitting some of the POC stuff that Jacopo
did into different components...
-David
On Jan 23, 2009, at 4:42 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> I would really prefer to keep it in the framework and just move the
> quickInitDataWarehouse (demo) service to somewhere else... any of
> the existing applications' components would be fine.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Jan 5, 2009, at 2:11 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>
>> I have read David's post and I understood that having BI in
>> specialpurpose was not correct because it is a core module for an
>> ERP.
>> From this I thought that having it in application could be ok and
>> still have the framework easily isolable.
>> -Bruno
>>
>> 2009/1/5 BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> I think if you read davids comments included, that is the reason.
>>> Framework you can have dependencies on,
>>> Application you can not have framework depend on applications.
>>>
>>> Bruno Busco sent the following on 1/4/2009 1:48 PM:
>>>> Hi Jacopo,
>>>> I have moved the "bi" folder from the framework to
>>>> "application" (not
>>>> specialpurpose) and changed build.xml and component-load.xml.
>>>> It seems to me that it works well there.
>>>>
>>>> Are there any specific reasons for having it in the framework
>>>> folder
>>>> and not moving to "application" folder?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> -Bruno
>>>>
>>>> 2009/1/4 Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>>> Hi Bruno,
>>>>>
>>>>> these service calls are part of the quickInitDataWarehouse
>>>>> method that is
>>>>> just a util method to simplify the BI setup for demo purposes: I
>>>>> know this
>>>>> is not ideal and I agree that the method should be moved outside
>>>>> of the
>>>>> framework.
>>>>> But maybe for now we could leave it as is and just add a comment
>>>>> to it... it
>>>>> is really useful in demos and testing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 26, 2008, at 8:53 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's fine,
>>>>>> we should then understand how to resolve some dependencies i.e.
>>>>>> service calls like:
>>>>>> <call-service service-
>>>>>> name="loadAllProductsInProductDimension"
>>>>>> in-map-name="inMap"/>
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> <call-service service-name="loadSalesInvoiceFact"
>>>>>> in-map-name="inMap"/>
>>>>>> that are defined in catalog and accounting components that (I
>>>>>> guess)
>>>>>> will not part of the framework.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2008/12/26 David E. Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>>>>> I think you misunderstand. The main bi stuff is just a tool,
>>>>>>> and really
>>>>>>> belongs in the framework. Built on top of those tools are OOTB
>>>>>>> star
>>>>>>> schema data models that can be used along with the OOTB
>>>>>>> operational data
>>>>>>> model. Those belong with the base applications, along with
>>>>>>> reports that
>>>>>>> are more generic in nature. Either way, most of the bi stuff
>>>>>>> is core to
>>>>>>> OFBiz, and an important part of it (especially the star-schema
>>>>>>> and data
>>>>>>> warehouse related parts), and is certainly not a peripheral
>>>>>>> add-on as
>>>>>>> being in specialpurpose would imply.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>>> But maybe is better to move files using SVN in order to
>>>>>>>> maintain
>>>>>>>> history...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>> If needed I can send a patch for this right now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>> I was trying to move the BI folder from framework to
>>>>>>>>>> specialpurpose
>>>>>>>>>> and, once changed the build.xml and component-load.xml files,
>>>>>>>>>> it seems to build and work well.
>>>>>>>>>> Could we move it in order to simplify the framework-only
>>>>>>>>>> deploy?
>>>>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 David E. Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>> The placement of BI in the diagram is based on the original
>>>>>>>>>>> implementation, which was not part of the framework as it
>>>>>>>>>>> is now. BI
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> kind of a funny one and while there are tools for BI in the
>>>>>>>>>>> framework,
>>>>>>>>>>> and base data structures within the base applications, it
>>>>>>>>>>> can really
>>>>>>>>>>> exist in applications, specialpurpose, or hot-deploy/add-on
>>>>>>>>>>> components.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you David,
>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not see this page before and it helps very much.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I will take this as a Christmas present from you. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, so this confirms that party should be out of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> framework and
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> should remove all dependences on it from the framework
>>>>>>>>>>>> (not adding
>>>>>>>>>>>> more).
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then I see that the BI also is out of the framework (and
>>>>>>>>>>>> this is ok)
>>>>>>>>>>>> but in my framework-only installation that I got deleting
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> applications and specialourpose folders from a full trunk
>>>>>>>>>>>> checkout
>>>>>>>>>>>> BI
>>>>>>>>>>>> is there but of couurse not working.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Could we think of moving BI files from framework to
>>>>>>>>>>>> specialpurpose
>>>>>>>>>>>> folder?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 David E Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The decision has already been made, and even documented
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a miracle,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> know). For details see:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now we just need to stick to it... so thanks for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bringing this up
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruno.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 25, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this change sets an additional dependence of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Party application.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We should definitively take a decition on how to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 <ha...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed Dec 24 22:26:14 2008
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New Revision: 729396
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=729396&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OFBIZ-2097: show organizationPartyId in header(can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferences), rewrote financial history to show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currencies,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invoice/p[aymentworker now can show in actual and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organizationparty currency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Added:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-INF/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actions/party/UnAppliedInvoicesForParty.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (with props)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-INF/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actions/party/UnAppliedPaymentsForParty.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (with props)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/config/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AccountingUiLabels.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/entitydef/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entitymodel.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accounting/invoice/InvoiceWorker.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accounting/payment/PaymentWorker.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WEB-INF/actions/invoice/EditInvoice.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invoice/InvoiceForms.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> payment/PaymentForms.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/widget/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> InvoiceScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/widget/Menus.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-INF/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actions/party/PartyFinancialHistory.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/party/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PartyForms.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/widget/partymgr/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PartyScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/widget/partymgr/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ProfileScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonUiLabels.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/webcommon/includes/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> header.ftl
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/widget/CommonScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>>
>>> iD8DBQFJYV4OrP3NbaWWqE4RApKFAKCHbPfHV8qwnPhdUvVdO6OiGhuejACbBaQS
>>> m2jKte9yyaZuQ3HEhoOpxwU=
>>> =bFu4
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>
>
Re: svn commit: r729396 [1/2] - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/accounting/config/ applications/accounting/entitydef/ applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/invoice/ applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/payment/ applications/accou
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
I would really prefer to keep it in the framework and just move the
quickInitDataWarehouse (demo) service to somewhere else... any of the
existing applications' components would be fine.
Jacopo
On Jan 5, 2009, at 2:11 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
> I have read David's post and I understood that having BI in
> specialpurpose was not correct because it is a core module for an ERP.
> From this I thought that having it in application could be ok and
> still have the framework easily isolable.
> -Bruno
>
> 2009/1/5 BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> I think if you read davids comments included, that is the reason.
>> Framework you can have dependencies on,
>> Application you can not have framework depend on applications.
>>
>> Bruno Busco sent the following on 1/4/2009 1:48 PM:
>>> Hi Jacopo,
>>> I have moved the "bi" folder from the framework to
>>> "application" (not
>>> specialpurpose) and changed build.xml and component-load.xml.
>>> It seems to me that it works well there.
>>>
>>> Are there any specific reasons for having it in the framework folder
>>> and not moving to "application" folder?
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> -Bruno
>>>
>>> 2009/1/4 Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>> Hi Bruno,
>>>>
>>>> these service calls are part of the quickInitDataWarehouse method
>>>> that is
>>>> just a util method to simplify the BI setup for demo purposes: I
>>>> know this
>>>> is not ideal and I agree that the method should be moved outside
>>>> of the
>>>> framework.
>>>> But maybe for now we could leave it as is and just add a comment
>>>> to it... it
>>>> is really useful in demos and testing.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 26, 2008, at 8:53 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That's fine,
>>>>> we should then understand how to resolve some dependencies i.e.
>>>>> service calls like:
>>>>> <call-service service-
>>>>> name="loadAllProductsInProductDimension"
>>>>> in-map-name="inMap"/>
>>>>> or
>>>>> <call-service service-name="loadSalesInvoiceFact"
>>>>> in-map-name="inMap"/>
>>>>> that are defined in catalog and accounting components that (I
>>>>> guess)
>>>>> will not part of the framework.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>
>>>>> 2008/12/26 David E. Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>>>> I think you misunderstand. The main bi stuff is just a tool,
>>>>>> and really
>>>>>> belongs in the framework. Built on top of those tools are OOTB
>>>>>> star
>>>>>> schema data models that can be used along with the OOTB
>>>>>> operational data
>>>>>> model. Those belong with the base applications, along with
>>>>>> reports that
>>>>>> are more generic in nature. Either way, most of the bi stuff is
>>>>>> core to
>>>>>> OFBiz, and an important part of it (especially the star-schema
>>>>>> and data
>>>>>> warehouse related parts), and is certainly not a peripheral add-
>>>>>> on as
>>>>>> being in specialpurpose would imply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>> But maybe is better to move files using SVN in order to maintain
>>>>>>> history...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>> If needed I can send a patch for this right now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>> I was trying to move the BI folder from framework to
>>>>>>>>> specialpurpose
>>>>>>>>> and, once changed the build.xml and component-load.xml files,
>>>>>>>>> it seems to build and work well.
>>>>>>>>> Could we move it in order to simplify the framework-only
>>>>>>>>> deploy?
>>>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 David E. Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>>>>>>>> The placement of BI in the diagram is based on the original
>>>>>>>>>> implementation, which was not part of the framework as it
>>>>>>>>>> is now. BI
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> kind of a funny one and while there are tools for BI in the
>>>>>>>>>> framework,
>>>>>>>>>> and base data structures within the base applications, it
>>>>>>>>>> can really
>>>>>>>>>> exist in applications, specialpurpose, or hot-deploy/add-on
>>>>>>>>>> components.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you David,
>>>>>>>>>>> I did not see this page before and it helps very much.
>>>>>>>>>>> I will take this as a Christmas present from you. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, so this confirms that party should be out of the
>>>>>>>>>>> framework and
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>> should remove all dependences on it from the framework
>>>>>>>>>>> (not adding
>>>>>>>>>>> more).
>>>>>>>>>>> Then I see that the BI also is out of the framework (and
>>>>>>>>>>> this is ok)
>>>>>>>>>>> but in my framework-only installation that I got deleting
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> applications and specialourpose folders from a full trunk
>>>>>>>>>>> checkout
>>>>>>>>>>> BI
>>>>>>>>>>> is there but of couurse not working.
>>>>>>>>>>> Could we think of moving BI files from framework to
>>>>>>>>>>> specialpurpose
>>>>>>>>>>> folder?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 David E Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The decision has already been made, and even documented
>>>>>>>>>>>> (a miracle,
>>>>>>>>>>>> yes I
>>>>>>>>>>>> know). For details see:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now we just need to stick to it... so thanks for bringing
>>>>>>>>>>>> this up
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruno.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 25, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this change sets an additional dependence of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Party application.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We should definitively take a decition on how to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 <ha...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed Dec 24 22:26:14 2008
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New Revision: 729396
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=729396&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OFBIZ-2097: show organizationPartyId in header(can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferences), rewrote financial history to show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currencies,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invoice/p[aymentworker now can show in actual and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organizationparty currency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Added:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-INF/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actions/party/UnAppliedInvoicesForParty.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (with props)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-INF/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actions/party/UnAppliedPaymentsForParty.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (with props)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/config/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AccountingUiLabels.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/entitydef/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entitymodel.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accounting/invoice/InvoiceWorker.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accounting/payment/PaymentWorker.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WEB-INF/actions/invoice/EditInvoice.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invoice/InvoiceForms.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> payment/PaymentForms.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/widget/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> InvoiceScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/widget/Menus.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-INF/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actions/party/PartyFinancialHistory.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/party/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PartyForms.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/widget/partymgr/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PartyScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/widget/partymgr/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ProfileScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonUiLabels.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/webcommon/includes/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> header.ftl
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/widget/CommonScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>
>> iD8DBQFJYV4OrP3NbaWWqE4RApKFAKCHbPfHV8qwnPhdUvVdO6OiGhuejACbBaQS
>> m2jKte9yyaZuQ3HEhoOpxwU=
>> =bFu4
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
Re: svn commit: r729396 [1/2] - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/accounting/config/
applications/accounting/entitydef/ applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/invoice/
applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/payment/ applications/accou
Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Bi started in special purpose than got moved to framework
it was moved to framework to be part of the core tools.
moving it to application removes the ability to be a core tool.
note david's comment:
2008/12/26 David E. Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
I think you misunderstand. The main bi stuff is just a tool, and really
belongs in the framework.
Bruno Busco sent the following on 1/5/2009 1:11 AM:
> I have read David's post and I understood that having BI in
> specialpurpose was not correct because it is a core module for an ERP.
>>>From this I thought that having it in application could be ok and
> still have the framework easily isolable.
> -Bruno
>
> 2009/1/5 BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>:
> I think if you read davids comments included, that is the reason.
> Framework you can have dependencies on,
> Application you can not have framework depend on applications.
>
> Bruno Busco sent the following on 1/4/2009 1:48 PM:
>>>> Hi Jacopo,
>>>> I have moved the "bi" folder from the framework to "application" (not
>>>> specialpurpose) and changed build.xml and component-load.xml.
>>>> It seems to me that it works well there.
>>>>
>>>> Are there any specific reasons for having it in the framework folder
>>>> and not moving to "application" folder?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> -Bruno
>>>>
>>>> 2009/1/4 Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>>> Hi Bruno,
>>>>>
>>>>> these service calls are part of the quickInitDataWarehouse method that is
>>>>> just a util method to simplify the BI setup for demo purposes: I know this
>>>>> is not ideal and I agree that the method should be moved outside of the
>>>>> framework.
>>>>> But maybe for now we could leave it as is and just add a comment to it... it
>>>>> is really useful in demos and testing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 26, 2008, at 8:53 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's fine,
>>>>>> we should then understand how to resolve some dependencies i.e.
>>>>>> service calls like:
>>>>>> <call-service service-name="loadAllProductsInProductDimension"
>>>>>> in-map-name="inMap"/>
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> <call-service service-name="loadSalesInvoiceFact"
>>>>>> in-map-name="inMap"/>
>>>>>> that are defined in catalog and accounting components that (I guess)
>>>>>> will not part of the framework.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2008/12/26 David E. Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>>>>> I think you misunderstand. The main bi stuff is just a tool, and really
>>>>>>> belongs in the framework. Built on top of those tools are OOTB star
>>>>>>> schema data models that can be used along with the OOTB operational data
>>>>>>> model. Those belong with the base applications, along with reports that
>>>>>>> are more generic in nature. Either way, most of the bi stuff is core to
>>>>>>> OFBiz, and an important part of it (especially the star-schema and data
>>>>>>> warehouse related parts), and is certainly not a peripheral add-on as
>>>>>>> being in specialpurpose would imply.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>>> But maybe is better to move files using SVN in order to maintain
>>>>>>>> history...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>> If needed I can send a patch for this right now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>> I was trying to move the BI folder from framework to specialpurpose
>>>>>>>>>> and, once changed the build.xml and component-load.xml files,
>>>>>>>>>> it seems to build and work well.
>>>>>>>>>> Could we move it in order to simplify the framework-only deploy?
>>>>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 David E. Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>> The placement of BI in the diagram is based on the original
>>>>>>>>>>> implementation, which was not part of the framework as it is now. BI
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> kind of a funny one and while there are tools for BI in the
>>>>>>>>>>> framework,
>>>>>>>>>>> and base data structures within the base applications, it can really
>>>>>>>>>>> exist in applications, specialpurpose, or hot-deploy/add-on
>>>>>>>>>>> components.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you David,
>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not see this page before and it helps very much.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I will take this as a Christmas present from you. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, so this confirms that party should be out of the framework and
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> should remove all dependences on it from the framework (not adding
>>>>>>>>>>>> more).
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then I see that the BI also is out of the framework (and this is ok)
>>>>>>>>>>>> but in my framework-only installation that I got deleting the
>>>>>>>>>>>> applications and specialourpose folders from a full trunk checkout
>>>>>>>>>>>> BI
>>>>>>>>>>>> is there but of couurse not working.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Could we think of moving BI files from framework to specialpurpose
>>>>>>>>>>>> folder?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 David E Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The decision has already been made, and even documented (a miracle,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> know). For details see:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now we just need to stick to it... so thanks for bringing this up
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruno.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 25, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this change sets an additional dependence of the framework from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Party application.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We should definitively take a decition on how to separate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 <ha...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed Dec 24 22:26:14 2008
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New Revision: 729396
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=729396&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OFBIZ-2097: show organizationPartyId in header(can be set in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferences), rewrote financial history to show currencies,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invoice/p[aymentworker now can show in actual and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organizationparty currency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Added:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-INF/actions/party/UnAppliedInvoicesForParty.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (with props)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-INF/actions/party/UnAppliedPaymentsForParty.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (with props)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/config/AccountingUiLabels.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/entitydef/entitymodel.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/invoice/InvoiceWorker.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/payment/PaymentWorker.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/WEB-INF/actions/invoice/EditInvoice.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/invoice/InvoiceForms.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/payment/PaymentForms.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/widget/InvoiceScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/widget/Menus.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-INF/actions/party/PartyFinancialHistory.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/party/PartyForms.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/widget/partymgr/PartyScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/widget/partymgr/ProfileScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonUiLabels.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/webcommon/includes/header.ftl
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/widget/CommonScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFJYie0rP3NbaWWqE4RAsf6AJ4nC2ddAGQDzq9y04msa5p7//0FbACfaL/S
/JBsrJa6/4noCyYKMMznUts=
=fSVb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: svn commit: r729396 [1/2] - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/accounting/config/ applications/accounting/entitydef/ applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/invoice/ applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/payment/ applications/accou
Posted by Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>.
I have read David's post and I understood that having BI in
specialpurpose was not correct because it is a core module for an ERP.
>From this I thought that having it in application could be ok and
still have the framework easily isolable.
-Bruno
2009/1/5 BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I think if you read davids comments included, that is the reason.
> Framework you can have dependencies on,
> Application you can not have framework depend on applications.
>
> Bruno Busco sent the following on 1/4/2009 1:48 PM:
>> Hi Jacopo,
>> I have moved the "bi" folder from the framework to "application" (not
>> specialpurpose) and changed build.xml and component-load.xml.
>> It seems to me that it works well there.
>>
>> Are there any specific reasons for having it in the framework folder
>> and not moving to "application" folder?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> -Bruno
>>
>> 2009/1/4 Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>> Hi Bruno,
>>>
>>> these service calls are part of the quickInitDataWarehouse method that is
>>> just a util method to simplify the BI setup for demo purposes: I know this
>>> is not ideal and I agree that the method should be moved outside of the
>>> framework.
>>> But maybe for now we could leave it as is and just add a comment to it... it
>>> is really useful in demos and testing.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 26, 2008, at 8:53 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's fine,
>>>> we should then understand how to resolve some dependencies i.e.
>>>> service calls like:
>>>> <call-service service-name="loadAllProductsInProductDimension"
>>>> in-map-name="inMap"/>
>>>> or
>>>> <call-service service-name="loadSalesInvoiceFact"
>>>> in-map-name="inMap"/>
>>>> that are defined in catalog and accounting components that (I guess)
>>>> will not part of the framework.
>>>>
>>>> -Bruno
>>>>
>>>> 2008/12/26 David E. Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>>> I think you misunderstand. The main bi stuff is just a tool, and really
>>>>> belongs in the framework. Built on top of those tools are OOTB star
>>>>> schema data models that can be used along with the OOTB operational data
>>>>> model. Those belong with the base applications, along with reports that
>>>>> are more generic in nature. Either way, most of the bi stuff is core to
>>>>> OFBiz, and an important part of it (especially the star-schema and data
>>>>> warehouse related parts), and is certainly not a peripheral add-on as
>>>>> being in specialpurpose would imply.
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>> But maybe is better to move files using SVN in order to maintain
>>>>>> history...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2008/12/25 Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>> If needed I can send a patch for this right now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>> I was trying to move the BI folder from framework to specialpurpose
>>>>>>>> and, once changed the build.xml and component-load.xml files,
>>>>>>>> it seems to build and work well.
>>>>>>>> Could we move it in order to simplify the framework-only deploy?
>>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 David E. Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>>>>>>> The placement of BI in the diagram is based on the original
>>>>>>>>> implementation, which was not part of the framework as it is now. BI
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> kind of a funny one and while there are tools for BI in the
>>>>>>>>> framework,
>>>>>>>>> and base data structures within the base applications, it can really
>>>>>>>>> exist in applications, specialpurpose, or hot-deploy/add-on
>>>>>>>>> components.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you David,
>>>>>>>>>> I did not see this page before and it helps very much.
>>>>>>>>>> I will take this as a Christmas present from you. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BTW, so this confirms that party should be out of the framework and
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> should remove all dependences on it from the framework (not adding
>>>>>>>>>> more).
>>>>>>>>>> Then I see that the BI also is out of the framework (and this is ok)
>>>>>>>>>> but in my framework-only installation that I got deleting the
>>>>>>>>>> applications and specialourpose folders from a full trunk checkout
>>>>>>>>>> BI
>>>>>>>>>> is there but of couurse not working.
>>>>>>>>>> Could we think of moving BI files from framework to specialpurpose
>>>>>>>>>> folder?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 David E Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The decision has already been made, and even documented (a miracle,
>>>>>>>>>>> yes I
>>>>>>>>>>> know). For details see:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now we just need to stick to it... so thanks for bringing this up
>>>>>>>>>>> Bruno.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 25, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>> this change sets an additional dependence of the framework from
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Party application.
>>>>>>>>>>>> We should definitively take a decition on how to separate the
>>>>>>>>>>>> framework.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 <ha...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed Dec 24 22:26:14 2008
>>>>>>>>>>>>> New Revision: 729396
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=729396&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> OFBIZ-2097: show organizationPartyId in header(can be set in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferences), rewrote financial history to show currencies,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> invoice/p[aymentworker now can show in actual and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> organizationparty currency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Added:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-INF/actions/party/UnAppliedInvoicesForParty.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (with props)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-INF/actions/party/UnAppliedPaymentsForParty.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (with props)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/config/AccountingUiLabels.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/entitydef/entitymodel.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/invoice/InvoiceWorker.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/payment/PaymentWorker.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/WEB-INF/actions/invoice/EditInvoice.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/invoice/InvoiceForms.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/payment/PaymentForms.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/widget/InvoiceScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/widget/Menus.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-INF/actions/party/PartyFinancialHistory.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/party/PartyForms.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/widget/partymgr/PartyScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/widget/partymgr/ProfileScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonUiLabels.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/webcommon/includes/header.ftl
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/widget/CommonScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFJYV4OrP3NbaWWqE4RApKFAKCHbPfHV8qwnPhdUvVdO6OiGhuejACbBaQS
> m2jKte9yyaZuQ3HEhoOpxwU=
> =bFu4
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
Re: svn commit: r729396 [1/2] - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/accounting/config/
applications/accounting/entitydef/ applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/invoice/
applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/payment/ applications/accou
Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I think if you read davids comments included, that is the reason.
Framework you can have dependencies on,
Application you can not have framework depend on applications.
Bruno Busco sent the following on 1/4/2009 1:48 PM:
> Hi Jacopo,
> I have moved the "bi" folder from the framework to "application" (not
> specialpurpose) and changed build.xml and component-load.xml.
> It seems to me that it works well there.
>
> Are there any specific reasons for having it in the framework folder
> and not moving to "application" folder?
>
> Thank you,
> -Bruno
>
> 2009/1/4 Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>> Hi Bruno,
>>
>> these service calls are part of the quickInitDataWarehouse method that is
>> just a util method to simplify the BI setup for demo purposes: I know this
>> is not ideal and I agree that the method should be moved outside of the
>> framework.
>> But maybe for now we could leave it as is and just add a comment to it... it
>> is really useful in demos and testing.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>> On Dec 26, 2008, at 8:53 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>
>>> That's fine,
>>> we should then understand how to resolve some dependencies i.e.
>>> service calls like:
>>> <call-service service-name="loadAllProductsInProductDimension"
>>> in-map-name="inMap"/>
>>> or
>>> <call-service service-name="loadSalesInvoiceFact"
>>> in-map-name="inMap"/>
>>> that are defined in catalog and accounting components that (I guess)
>>> will not part of the framework.
>>>
>>> -Bruno
>>>
>>> 2008/12/26 David E. Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>> I think you misunderstand. The main bi stuff is just a tool, and really
>>>> belongs in the framework. Built on top of those tools are OOTB star
>>>> schema data models that can be used along with the OOTB operational data
>>>> model. Those belong with the base applications, along with reports that
>>>> are more generic in nature. Either way, most of the bi stuff is core to
>>>> OFBiz, and an important part of it (especially the star-schema and data
>>>> warehouse related parts), and is certainly not a peripheral add-on as
>>>> being in specialpurpose would imply.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>> But maybe is better to move files using SVN in order to maintain
>>>>> history...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2008/12/25 Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>> If needed I can send a patch for this right now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2008/12/25 Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>> I was trying to move the BI folder from framework to specialpurpose
>>>>>>> and, once changed the build.xml and component-load.xml files,
>>>>>>> it seems to build and work well.
>>>>>>> Could we move it in order to simplify the framework-only deploy?
>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 David E. Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>>>>>> The placement of BI in the diagram is based on the original
>>>>>>>> implementation, which was not part of the framework as it is now. BI
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> kind of a funny one and while there are tools for BI in the
>>>>>>>> framework,
>>>>>>>> and base data structures within the base applications, it can really
>>>>>>>> exist in applications, specialpurpose, or hot-deploy/add-on
>>>>>>>> components.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Thank you David,
>>>>>>>>> I did not see this page before and it helps very much.
>>>>>>>>> I will take this as a Christmas present from you. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BTW, so this confirms that party should be out of the framework and
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> should remove all dependences on it from the framework (not adding
>>>>>>>>> more).
>>>>>>>>> Then I see that the BI also is out of the framework (and this is ok)
>>>>>>>>> but in my framework-only installation that I got deleting the
>>>>>>>>> applications and specialourpose folders from a full trunk checkout
>>>>>>>>> BI
>>>>>>>>> is there but of couurse not working.
>>>>>>>>> Could we think of moving BI files from framework to specialpurpose
>>>>>>>>> folder?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 David E Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The decision has already been made, and even documented (a miracle,
>>>>>>>>>> yes I
>>>>>>>>>> know). For details see:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now we just need to stick to it... so thanks for bringing this up
>>>>>>>>>> Bruno.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 25, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>> this change sets an additional dependence of the framework from
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Party application.
>>>>>>>>>>> We should definitively take a decition on how to separate the
>>>>>>>>>>> framework.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 <ha...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed Dec 24 22:26:14 2008
>>>>>>>>>>>> New Revision: 729396
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=729396&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>>>> OFBIZ-2097: show organizationPartyId in header(can be set in
>>>>>>>>>>>> preferences), rewrote financial history to show currencies,
>>>>>>>>>>>> invoice/p[aymentworker now can show in actual and
>>>>>>>>>>>> organizationparty currency
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Added:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-INF/actions/party/UnAppliedInvoicesForParty.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>> (with props)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-INF/actions/party/UnAppliedPaymentsForParty.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>> (with props)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/config/AccountingUiLabels.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/entitydef/entitymodel.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/invoice/InvoiceWorker.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/payment/PaymentWorker.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/WEB-INF/actions/invoice/EditInvoice.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/invoice/InvoiceForms.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/payment/PaymentForms.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/widget/InvoiceScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/widget/Menus.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-INF/actions/party/PartyFinancialHistory.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/party/PartyForms.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/widget/partymgr/PartyScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/widget/partymgr/ProfileScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonUiLabels.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/webcommon/includes/header.ftl
>>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/widget/CommonScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFJYV4OrP3NbaWWqE4RApKFAKCHbPfHV8qwnPhdUvVdO6OiGhuejACbBaQS
m2jKte9yyaZuQ3HEhoOpxwU=
=bFu4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: svn commit: r729396 [1/2] - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/accounting/config/ applications/accounting/entitydef/ applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/invoice/ applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/payment/ applications/accou
Posted by Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jacopo,
I have moved the "bi" folder from the framework to "application" (not
specialpurpose) and changed build.xml and component-load.xml.
It seems to me that it works well there.
Are there any specific reasons for having it in the framework folder
and not moving to "application" folder?
Thank you,
-Bruno
2009/1/4 Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
> Hi Bruno,
>
> these service calls are part of the quickInitDataWarehouse method that is
> just a util method to simplify the BI setup for demo purposes: I know this
> is not ideal and I agree that the method should be moved outside of the
> framework.
> But maybe for now we could leave it as is and just add a comment to it... it
> is really useful in demos and testing.
>
> Jacopo
>
>
> On Dec 26, 2008, at 8:53 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>
>> That's fine,
>> we should then understand how to resolve some dependencies i.e.
>> service calls like:
>> <call-service service-name="loadAllProductsInProductDimension"
>> in-map-name="inMap"/>
>> or
>> <call-service service-name="loadSalesInvoiceFact"
>> in-map-name="inMap"/>
>> that are defined in catalog and accounting components that (I guess)
>> will not part of the framework.
>>
>> -Bruno
>>
>> 2008/12/26 David E. Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>
>>> I think you misunderstand. The main bi stuff is just a tool, and really
>>> belongs in the framework. Built on top of those tools are OOTB star
>>> schema data models that can be used along with the OOTB operational data
>>> model. Those belong with the base applications, along with reports that
>>> are more generic in nature. Either way, most of the bi stuff is core to
>>> OFBiz, and an important part of it (especially the star-schema and data
>>> warehouse related parts), and is certainly not a peripheral add-on as
>>> being in specialpurpose would imply.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But maybe is better to move files using SVN in order to maintain
>>>> history...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2008/12/25 Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>> If needed I can send a patch for this right now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2008/12/25 Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David,
>>>>>> I was trying to move the BI folder from framework to specialpurpose
>>>>>> and, once changed the build.xml and component-load.xml files,
>>>>>> it seems to build and work well.
>>>>>> Could we move it in order to simplify the framework-only deploy?
>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2008/12/25 David E. Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The placement of BI in the diagram is based on the original
>>>>>>> implementation, which was not part of the framework as it is now. BI
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> kind of a funny one and while there are tools for BI in the
>>>>>>> framework,
>>>>>>> and base data structures within the base applications, it can really
>>>>>>> exist in applications, specialpurpose, or hot-deploy/add-on
>>>>>>> components.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you David,
>>>>>>>> I did not see this page before and it helps very much.
>>>>>>>> I will take this as a Christmas present from you. ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW, so this confirms that party should be out of the framework and
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> should remove all dependences on it from the framework (not adding
>>>>>>>> more).
>>>>>>>> Then I see that the BI also is out of the framework (and this is ok)
>>>>>>>> but in my framework-only installation that I got deleting the
>>>>>>>> applications and specialourpose folders from a full trunk checkout
>>>>>>>> BI
>>>>>>>> is there but of couurse not working.
>>>>>>>> Could we think of moving BI files from framework to specialpurpose
>>>>>>>> folder?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 David E Jones <da...@hotwaxmedia.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The decision has already been made, and even documented (a miracle,
>>>>>>>>> yes I
>>>>>>>>> know). For details see:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now we just need to stick to it... so thanks for bringing this up
>>>>>>>>> Bruno.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 25, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>> this change sets an additional dependence of the framework from
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> Party application.
>>>>>>>>>> We should definitively take a decition on how to separate the
>>>>>>>>>> framework.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 <ha...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Author: hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed Dec 24 22:26:14 2008
>>>>>>>>>>> New Revision: 729396
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=729396&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>>> OFBIZ-2097: show organizationPartyId in header(can be set in
>>>>>>>>>>> preferences), rewrote financial history to show currencies,
>>>>>>>>>>> invoice/p[aymentworker now can show in actual and
>>>>>>>>>>> organizationparty currency
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Added:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-INF/actions/party/UnAppliedInvoicesForParty.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>> (with props)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-INF/actions/party/UnAppliedPaymentsForParty.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>> (with props)
>>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/config/AccountingUiLabels.xml
>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/entitydef/entitymodel.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/invoice/InvoiceWorker.java
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/payment/PaymentWorker.java
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/WEB-INF/actions/invoice/EditInvoice.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/invoice/InvoiceForms.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/payment/PaymentForms.xml
>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/widget/InvoiceScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/widget/Menus.xml
>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-INF/actions/party/PartyFinancialHistory.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/party/PartyForms.xml
>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/widget/partymgr/PartyScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/widget/partymgr/ProfileScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonUiLabels.xml
>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/webcommon/includes/header.ftl
>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/widget/CommonScreens.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>
>