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...@gmail.com> on 2008/06/22 08:07:43 UTC
Wish list for features in the upcoming framework release
I think that Bruno's suggestion of creating a "framework-candidate-
release-x" version in Jira would be useful, especially because there
is no official (or even unofficial) list of features/fixes to go in
the framework... probably each of us has its own preferences.
Of course we should try to keep the list small.
Jacopo
On Jun 21, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
> David,
> I think it will be beneficial to all contributors to have a list of
> what we
> would like to have included in the framework-only release, don't you?
>
> It will tell how far we are and to have, generally, more efforts on
> these
> tasks.
> Why don't define the framework-only version in JIRA and schedule for
> that
> the task-list ?
>
> Thank you,
> -Bruno
>
> 2008/6/20 David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>:
>
>>
>> This looks good Adrian, thanks for working on it.
>>
>> This was on my own little list of things I'd like to see added to the
>> framework before we do the framework-only release, so I'm really
>> happy to
>> see it in!
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>
Re: Wish list for features in the upcoming framework release
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@gmail.com>.
On Jun 26, 2008, at 4:03 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>
> I like the idea for simple-method. One thing to keep in mind is that
> many scripts are included "in-line" under the current call-bsh tag
> rather than referred to as a file, so we'll have to have the type
> attribute that was mentioned, and we should probably have it default
> to "groovy" (and also support "bsh" or something).
>
David, thanks for bringing this to our attention. This is a really
good point.
> BTW, on a related note, I do NOT like the idea of supporting scripts
> in-line in a screen's action area. It would clutter the screen
> definition making it harder to read and maintain, and it would limit
> reusability of the scripts.
>
Yes, I agree... I don't think anyone is working on this right now :-)
Jacopo
> -David
>
>
> On Jun 26, 2008, at 5:49 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>
>> Jacopo,
>>
>> Thanks for the clarification.
>> Let's see what other's has to say about it.
>>
>> --
>> Ashish
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 6:11 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <
>> jacopo.cappellato@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ashish,
>>>
>>> yes, what I meant that we could implement the new Minilang
>>> operation:
>>> "call-script"
>>>
>>> That operation could then be used to replace the existing "call-bsh"
>>> operation (that could be deprecated) and also it will be used to
>>> call Groovy
>>> scripts.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 26, 2008, at 11:54 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>>>
>>> Jacopo I liked the idea while we include the script file in Screen
>>>> Definition.
>>>> But if you will notice Jacques was talking about the Mini Lang
>>>> call-bsh
>>>> replacement to call-groovy.
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know your thoughts in reference to Mini Lang.
>>>> Thanks !
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ashish
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 5:34 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <
>>>> jacopo.cappellato@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What if we just add a <call-script/> element instead?
>>>>>
>>>>> We could then replace all the <call-bsh /> element to the new one.
>>>>> The new one will use the file suffix to use the proper Processor
>>>>> (.groovy,
>>>>> .bsh etc...)
>>>>> And we may add an optional parameter for the type ("groovy",
>>>>> "bsh" etc...
>>>>> that can be used if the script files don't have the right suffix).
>>>>>
>>>>> For example
>>>>>
>>>>> <call-script location="component://pathtoscript/myscript.groovy"/>
>>>>> <call-script location="component://pathtoscript/myscript.bsh"/>
>>>>> <call-script location="component://pathtoscript/
>>>>> mygroovyscript.grv"
>>>>> type="groovy"/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 26, 2008, at 11:10 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 for adding <call-groovy> in minilang.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can work on it in my free time as voluntarily if we would
>>>>>> like to
>>>>>> include
>>>>>> it in framework release.
>>>>>> Please let me know your thoughts on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ashish
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>>> jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 for Confluence
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, should we not add a <call-groovy> in minilang (or did I
>>>>>>> miss
>>>>>>> something) ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "David E Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like Jacopo hinted at, this is a community-driven effort and is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> therefore
>>>>>>>> a bit chaotic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The main thing I was requesting from the community is to
>>>>>>>> focus on the
>>>>>>>> framework for a little while so we can stabilize and clean up
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> framework in preparation for a binary release of it (leading
>>>>>>>> toward a
>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>> binary release of the whole project... but starting with
>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>> smaller
>>>>>>>> and easier).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyway, I do have a list of things I've been thinking about and
>>>>>>>> collecting, some from years ago. What I want to avoid though
>>>>>>>> is making
>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>> list the official list, or even any sort of majority of the
>>>>>>>> official
>>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>>> In other words, I want this to be a community effort more
>>>>>>>> than I want
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> have everything on my pet list done.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still, I do like the idea of starting to compile a list of
>>>>>>>> things we'd
>>>>>>>> all like to see go into the framework, and it's probably
>>>>>>>> about time to
>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> that rather than having more random (less communicated)
>>>>>>>> efforts on
>>>>>>>> different things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm thinking that a confluence/wiki page might be a better
>>>>>>>> place for
>>>>>>>> now
>>>>>>>> though, given the tentative nature of some of these things,
>>>>>>>> and often
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> need for discussion before more concrete plans are made.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do others think of this?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 2008, at 12:07 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that Bruno's suggestion of creating a "framework-
>>>>>>>> candidate-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> release-x" version in Jira would be useful, especially
>>>>>>>> because there
>>>>>>>>> is no
>>>>>>>>> official (or even unofficial) list of features/fixes to go
>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>> framework... probably each of us has its own preferences.
>>>>>>>>> Of course we should try to keep the list small.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 21, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think it will be beneficial to all contributors to have a
>>>>>>>>> list of
>>>>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>>>>> would like to have included in the framework-only release,
>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It will tell how far we are and to have, generally, more
>>>>>>>>>> efforts on
>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>> tasks.
>>>>>>>>>> Why don't define the framework-only version in JIRA and
>>>>>>>>>> schedule
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> the task-list ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2008/6/20 David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This looks good Adrian, thanks for working on it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This was on my own little list of things I'd like to see
>>>>>>>>>>> added to
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> framework before we do the framework-only release, so I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>> happy
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> see it in!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
Re: Wish list for features in the upcoming framework release
Posted by David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
I like the idea for simple-method. One thing to keep in mind is that
many scripts are included "in-line" under the current call-bsh tag
rather than referred to as a file, so we'll have to have the type
attribute that was mentioned, and we should probably have it default
to "groovy" (and also support "bsh" or something).
BTW, on a related note, I do NOT like the idea of supporting scripts
in-line in a screen's action area. It would clutter the screen
definition making it harder to read and maintain, and it would limit
reusability of the scripts.
-David
On Jun 26, 2008, at 5:49 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
> Jacopo,
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
> Let's see what other's has to say about it.
>
> --
> Ashish
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 6:11 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <
> jacopo.cappellato@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ashish,
>>
>> yes, what I meant that we could implement the new Minilang operation:
>> "call-script"
>>
>> That operation could then be used to replace the existing "call-bsh"
>> operation (that could be deprecated) and also it will be used to
>> call Groovy
>> scripts.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 26, 2008, at 11:54 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>>
>> Jacopo I liked the idea while we include the script file in Screen
>>> Definition.
>>> But if you will notice Jacques was talking about the Mini Lang
>>> call-bsh
>>> replacement to call-groovy.
>>>
>>> Please let me know your thoughts in reference to Mini Lang.
>>> Thanks !
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ashish
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 5:34 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <
>>> jacopo.cappellato@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> What if we just add a <call-script/> element instead?
>>>>
>>>> We could then replace all the <call-bsh /> element to the new one.
>>>> The new one will use the file suffix to use the proper Processor
>>>> (.groovy,
>>>> .bsh etc...)
>>>> And we may add an optional parameter for the type ("groovy",
>>>> "bsh" etc...
>>>> that can be used if the script files don't have the right suffix).
>>>>
>>>> For example
>>>>
>>>> <call-script location="component://pathtoscript/myscript.groovy"/>
>>>> <call-script location="component://pathtoscript/myscript.bsh"/>
>>>> <call-script location="component://pathtoscript/mygroovyscript.grv"
>>>> type="groovy"/>
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 26, 2008, at 11:10 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 for adding <call-groovy> in minilang.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I can work on it in my free time as voluntarily if we would like
>>>>> to
>>>>> include
>>>>> it in framework release.
>>>>> Please let me know your thoughts on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ashish
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>>> jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 for Confluence
>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, should we not add a <call-groovy> in minilang (or did I miss
>>>>>> something) ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "David E Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like Jacopo hinted at, this is a community-driven effort and is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> therefore
>>>>>>> a bit chaotic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The main thing I was requesting from the community is to focus
>>>>>>> on the
>>>>>>> framework for a little while so we can stabilize and clean up
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> framework in preparation for a binary release of it (leading
>>>>>>> toward a
>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>> binary release of the whole project... but starting with
>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>> smaller
>>>>>>> and easier).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, I do have a list of things I've been thinking about and
>>>>>>> collecting, some from years ago. What I want to avoid though
>>>>>>> is making
>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>> list the official list, or even any sort of majority of the
>>>>>>> official
>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>> In other words, I want this to be a community effort more
>>>>>>> than I want
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> have everything on my pet list done.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still, I do like the idea of starting to compile a list of
>>>>>>> things we'd
>>>>>>> all like to see go into the framework, and it's probably about
>>>>>>> time to
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> that rather than having more random (less communicated)
>>>>>>> efforts on
>>>>>>> different things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm thinking that a confluence/wiki page might be a better
>>>>>>> place for
>>>>>>> now
>>>>>>> though, given the tentative nature of some of these things,
>>>>>>> and often
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> need for discussion before more concrete plans are made.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do others think of this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 2008, at 12:07 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that Bruno's suggestion of creating a "framework-
>>>>>>> candidate-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> release-x" version in Jira would be useful, especially because
>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> is no
>>>>>>>> official (or even unofficial) list of features/fixes to go
>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>> framework... probably each of us has its own preferences.
>>>>>>>> Of course we should try to keep the list small.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jun 21, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it will be beneficial to all contributors to have a
>>>>>>>> list of
>>>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>>>> would like to have included in the framework-only release,
>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It will tell how far we are and to have, generally, more
>>>>>>>>> efforts on
>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>> tasks.
>>>>>>>>> Why don't define the framework-only version in JIRA and
>>>>>>>>> schedule
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> the task-list ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2008/6/20 David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This looks good Adrian, thanks for working on it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This was on my own little list of things I'd like to see
>>>>>>>>>> added to
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> framework before we do the framework-only release, so I'm
>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>> happy
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> see it in!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
Re: Wish list for features in the upcoming framework release
Posted by Ashish Vijaywargiya <vi...@gmail.com>.
Jacopo,
Thanks for the clarification.
Let's see what other's has to say about it.
--
Ashish
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 6:11 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappellato@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ashish,
>
> yes, what I meant that we could implement the new Minilang operation:
> "call-script"
>
> That operation could then be used to replace the existing "call-bsh"
> operation (that could be deprecated) and also it will be used to call Groovy
> scripts.
>
> Jacopo
>
>
>
> On Jun 26, 2008, at 11:54 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>
> Jacopo I liked the idea while we include the script file in Screen
>> Definition.
>> But if you will notice Jacques was talking about the Mini Lang call-bsh
>> replacement to call-groovy.
>>
>> Please let me know your thoughts in reference to Mini Lang.
>> Thanks !
>>
>> --
>> Ashish
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 5:34 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <
>> jacopo.cappellato@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What if we just add a <call-script/> element instead?
>>>
>>> We could then replace all the <call-bsh /> element to the new one.
>>> The new one will use the file suffix to use the proper Processor
>>> (.groovy,
>>> .bsh etc...)
>>> And we may add an optional parameter for the type ("groovy", "bsh" etc...
>>> that can be used if the script files don't have the right suffix).
>>>
>>> For example
>>>
>>> <call-script location="component://pathtoscript/myscript.groovy"/>
>>> <call-script location="component://pathtoscript/myscript.bsh"/>
>>> <call-script location="component://pathtoscript/mygroovyscript.grv"
>>> type="groovy"/>
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 26, 2008, at 11:10 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 for adding <call-groovy> in minilang.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can work on it in my free time as voluntarily if we would like to
>>>> include
>>>> it in framework release.
>>>> Please let me know your thoughts on it.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ashish
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>>> jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 for Confluence
>>>>
>>>>> BTW, should we not add a <call-groovy> in minilang (or did I miss
>>>>> something) ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "David E Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Like Jacopo hinted at, this is a community-driven effort and is
>>>>>
>>>>>> therefore
>>>>>> a bit chaotic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The main thing I was requesting from the community is to focus on the
>>>>>> framework for a little while so we can stabilize and clean up the
>>>>>> framework in preparation for a binary release of it (leading toward a
>>>>>> good
>>>>>> binary release of the whole project... but starting with something
>>>>>> smaller
>>>>>> and easier).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, I do have a list of things I've been thinking about and
>>>>>> collecting, some from years ago. What I want to avoid though is making
>>>>>> my
>>>>>> list the official list, or even any sort of majority of the official
>>>>>> list.
>>>>>> In other words, I want this to be a community effort more than I want
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> have everything on my pet list done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still, I do like the idea of starting to compile a list of things we'd
>>>>>> all like to see go into the framework, and it's probably about time to
>>>>>> do
>>>>>> that rather than having more random (less communicated) efforts on
>>>>>> different things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm thinking that a confluence/wiki page might be a better place for
>>>>>> now
>>>>>> though, given the tentative nature of some of these things, and often
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> need for discussion before more concrete plans are made.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do others think of this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 22, 2008, at 12:07 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that Bruno's suggestion of creating a "framework-candidate-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> release-x" version in Jira would be useful, especially because there
>>>>>>> is no
>>>>>>> official (or even unofficial) list of features/fixes to go in the
>>>>>>> framework... probably each of us has its own preferences.
>>>>>>> Of course we should try to keep the list small.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 21, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it will be beneficial to all contributors to have a list of
>>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>>> would like to have included in the framework-only release, don't
>>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It will tell how far we are and to have, generally, more efforts on
>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>> tasks.
>>>>>>>> Why don't define the framework-only version in JIRA and schedule
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> the task-list ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2008/6/20 David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This looks good Adrian, thanks for working on it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This was on my own little list of things I'd like to see added to
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> framework before we do the framework-only release, so I'm really
>>>>>>>>> happy
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> see it in!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>
Re: Wish list for features in the upcoming framework release
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@gmail.com>.
Ashish,
yes, what I meant that we could implement the new Minilang operation:
"call-script"
That operation could then be used to replace the existing "call-bsh"
operation (that could be deprecated) and also it will be used to call
Groovy scripts.
Jacopo
On Jun 26, 2008, at 11:54 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
> Jacopo I liked the idea while we include the script file in Screen
> Definition.
> But if you will notice Jacques was talking about the Mini Lang call-
> bsh
> replacement to call-groovy.
>
> Please let me know your thoughts in reference to Mini Lang.
> Thanks !
>
> --
> Ashish
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 5:34 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <
> jacopo.cappellato@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What if we just add a <call-script/> element instead?
>>
>> We could then replace all the <call-bsh /> element to the new one.
>> The new one will use the file suffix to use the proper Processor
>> (.groovy,
>> .bsh etc...)
>> And we may add an optional parameter for the type ("groovy", "bsh"
>> etc...
>> that can be used if the script files don't have the right suffix).
>>
>> For example
>>
>> <call-script location="component://pathtoscript/myscript.groovy"/>
>> <call-script location="component://pathtoscript/myscript.bsh"/>
>> <call-script location="component://pathtoscript/mygroovyscript.grv"
>> type="groovy"/>
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 26, 2008, at 11:10 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>>
>> +1 for adding <call-groovy> in minilang.
>>>
>>> I can work on it in my free time as voluntarily if we would like to
>>> include
>>> it in framework release.
>>> Please let me know your thoughts on it.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ashish
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
>>> jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 for Confluence
>>>> BTW, should we not add a <call-groovy> in minilang (or did I miss
>>>> something) ?
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> From: "David E Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Like Jacopo hinted at, this is a community-driven effort and is
>>>>> therefore
>>>>> a bit chaotic.
>>>>>
>>>>> The main thing I was requesting from the community is to focus
>>>>> on the
>>>>> framework for a little while so we can stabilize and clean up the
>>>>> framework in preparation for a binary release of it (leading
>>>>> toward a
>>>>> good
>>>>> binary release of the whole project... but starting with
>>>>> something
>>>>> smaller
>>>>> and easier).
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I do have a list of things I've been thinking about and
>>>>> collecting, some from years ago. What I want to avoid though is
>>>>> making
>>>>> my
>>>>> list the official list, or even any sort of majority of the
>>>>> official
>>>>> list.
>>>>> In other words, I want this to be a community effort more than
>>>>> I want
>>>>> to
>>>>> have everything on my pet list done.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still, I do like the idea of starting to compile a list of
>>>>> things we'd
>>>>> all like to see go into the framework, and it's probably about
>>>>> time to
>>>>> do
>>>>> that rather than having more random (less communicated) efforts on
>>>>> different things.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm thinking that a confluence/wiki page might be a better place
>>>>> for
>>>>> now
>>>>> though, given the tentative nature of some of these things, and
>>>>> often a
>>>>> need for discussion before more concrete plans are made.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do others think of this?
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 22, 2008, at 12:07 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that Bruno's suggestion of creating a "framework-
>>>>> candidate-
>>>>>
>>>>>> release-x" version in Jira would be useful, especially because
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> is no
>>>>>> official (or even unofficial) list of features/fixes to go in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> framework... probably each of us has its own preferences.
>>>>>> Of course we should try to keep the list small.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 21, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it will be beneficial to all contributors to have a
>>>>>>> list of
>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>> would like to have included in the framework-only release,
>>>>>>> don't you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It will tell how far we are and to have, generally, more
>>>>>>> efforts on
>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>> tasks.
>>>>>>> Why don't define the framework-only version in JIRA and
>>>>>>> schedule for
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> the task-list ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2008/6/20 David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This looks good Adrian, thanks for working on it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This was on my own little list of things I'd like to see
>>>>>>>> added to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> framework before we do the framework-only release, so I'm
>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>> happy
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> see it in!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
Re: Wish list for features in the upcoming framework release
Posted by Ashish Vijaywargiya <vi...@gmail.com>.
Jacopo I liked the idea while we include the script file in Screen
Definition.
But if you will notice Jacques was talking about the Mini Lang call-bsh
replacement to call-groovy.
Please let me know your thoughts in reference to Mini Lang.
Thanks !
--
Ashish
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 5:34 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappellato@gmail.com> wrote:
> What if we just add a <call-script/> element instead?
>
> We could then replace all the <call-bsh /> element to the new one.
> The new one will use the file suffix to use the proper Processor (.groovy,
> .bsh etc...)
> And we may add an optional parameter for the type ("groovy", "bsh" etc...
> that can be used if the script files don't have the right suffix).
>
> For example
>
> <call-script location="component://pathtoscript/myscript.groovy"/>
> <call-script location="component://pathtoscript/myscript.bsh"/>
> <call-script location="component://pathtoscript/mygroovyscript.grv"
> type="groovy"/>
>
> Jacopo
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 26, 2008, at 11:10 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
>
> +1 for adding <call-groovy> in minilang.
>>
>> I can work on it in my free time as voluntarily if we would like to
>> include
>> it in framework release.
>> Please let me know your thoughts on it.
>>
>> --
>> Ashish
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
>> jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1 for Confluence
>>> BTW, should we not add a <call-groovy> in minilang (or did I miss
>>> something) ?
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> From: "David E Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>
>>>
>>> Like Jacopo hinted at, this is a community-driven effort and is
>>>> therefore
>>>> a bit chaotic.
>>>>
>>>> The main thing I was requesting from the community is to focus on the
>>>> framework for a little while so we can stabilize and clean up the
>>>> framework in preparation for a binary release of it (leading toward a
>>>> good
>>>> binary release of the whole project... but starting with something
>>>> smaller
>>>> and easier).
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I do have a list of things I've been thinking about and
>>>> collecting, some from years ago. What I want to avoid though is making
>>>> my
>>>> list the official list, or even any sort of majority of the official
>>>> list.
>>>> In other words, I want this to be a community effort more than I want
>>>> to
>>>> have everything on my pet list done.
>>>>
>>>> Still, I do like the idea of starting to compile a list of things we'd
>>>> all like to see go into the framework, and it's probably about time to
>>>> do
>>>> that rather than having more random (less communicated) efforts on
>>>> different things.
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking that a confluence/wiki page might be a better place for
>>>> now
>>>> though, given the tentative nature of some of these things, and often a
>>>> need for discussion before more concrete plans are made.
>>>>
>>>> What do others think of this?
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 22, 2008, at 12:07 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think that Bruno's suggestion of creating a "framework-candidate-
>>>>
>>>>> release-x" version in Jira would be useful, especially because there
>>>>> is no
>>>>> official (or even unofficial) list of features/fixes to go in the
>>>>> framework... probably each of us has its own preferences.
>>>>> Of course we should try to keep the list small.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 21, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> David,
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it will be beneficial to all contributors to have a list of
>>>>>> what we
>>>>>> would like to have included in the framework-only release, don't you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It will tell how far we are and to have, generally, more efforts on
>>>>>> these
>>>>>> tasks.
>>>>>> Why don't define the framework-only version in JIRA and schedule for
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> the task-list ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2008/6/20 David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This looks good Adrian, thanks for working on it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This was on my own little list of things I'd like to see added to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> framework before we do the framework-only release, so I'm really
>>>>>>> happy
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> see it in!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>
Re: Wish list for features in the upcoming framework release
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@gmail.com>.
What if we just add a <call-script/> element instead?
We could then replace all the <call-bsh /> element to the new one.
The new one will use the file suffix to use the proper Processor
(.groovy, .bsh etc...)
And we may add an optional parameter for the type ("groovy", "bsh"
etc... that can be used if the script files don't have the right
suffix).
For example
<call-script location="component://pathtoscript/myscript.groovy"/>
<call-script location="component://pathtoscript/myscript.bsh"/>
<call-script location="component://pathtoscript/mygroovyscript.grv"
type="groovy"/>
Jacopo
On Jun 26, 2008, at 11:10 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote:
> +1 for adding <call-groovy> in minilang.
>
> I can work on it in my free time as voluntarily if we would like to
> include
> it in framework release.
> Please let me know your thoughts on it.
>
> --
> Ashish
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
> jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 for Confluence
>> BTW, should we not add a <call-groovy> in minilang (or did I miss
>> something) ?
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "David E Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>
>>
>>> Like Jacopo hinted at, this is a community-driven effort and is
>>> therefore
>>> a bit chaotic.
>>>
>>> The main thing I was requesting from the community is to focus on
>>> the
>>> framework for a little while so we can stabilize and clean up the
>>> framework in preparation for a binary release of it (leading
>>> toward a good
>>> binary release of the whole project... but starting with
>>> something smaller
>>> and easier).
>>>
>>> Anyway, I do have a list of things I've been thinking about and
>>> collecting, some from years ago. What I want to avoid though is
>>> making my
>>> list the official list, or even any sort of majority of the
>>> official list.
>>> In other words, I want this to be a community effort more than I
>>> want to
>>> have everything on my pet list done.
>>>
>>> Still, I do like the idea of starting to compile a list of things
>>> we'd
>>> all like to see go into the framework, and it's probably about
>>> time to do
>>> that rather than having more random (less communicated) efforts on
>>> different things.
>>>
>>> I'm thinking that a confluence/wiki page might be a better place
>>> for now
>>> though, given the tentative nature of some of these things, and
>>> often a
>>> need for discussion before more concrete plans are made.
>>>
>>> What do others think of this?
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 22, 2008, at 12:07 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>
>>> I think that Bruno's suggestion of creating a "framework-candidate-
>>>> release-x" version in Jira would be useful, especially because
>>>> there is no
>>>> official (or even unofficial) list of features/fixes to go in the
>>>> framework... probably each of us has its own preferences.
>>>> Of course we should try to keep the list small.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 21, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>
>>>> David,
>>>>> I think it will be beneficial to all contributors to have a list
>>>>> of
>>>>> what we
>>>>> would like to have included in the framework-only release, don't
>>>>> you?
>>>>>
>>>>> It will tell how far we are and to have, generally, more efforts
>>>>> on
>>>>> these
>>>>> tasks.
>>>>> Why don't define the framework-only version in JIRA and
>>>>> schedule for
>>>>> that
>>>>> the task-list ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>
>>>>> 2008/6/20 David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> This looks good Adrian, thanks for working on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This was on my own little list of things I'd like to see added
>>>>>> to the
>>>>>> framework before we do the framework-only release, so I'm
>>>>>> really happy
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> see it in!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
Re: Wish list for features in the upcoming framework release
Posted by Ashish Vijaywargiya <vi...@gmail.com>.
+1 for adding <call-groovy> in minilang.
I can work on it in my free time as voluntarily if we would like to include
it in framework release.
Please let me know your thoughts on it.
--
Ashish
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com> wrote:
> +1 for Confluence
> BTW, should we not add a <call-groovy> in minilang (or did I miss
> something) ?
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "David E Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>
>
>> Like Jacopo hinted at, this is a community-driven effort and is therefore
>> a bit chaotic.
>>
>> The main thing I was requesting from the community is to focus on the
>> framework for a little while so we can stabilize and clean up the
>> framework in preparation for a binary release of it (leading toward a good
>> binary release of the whole project... but starting with something smaller
>> and easier).
>>
>> Anyway, I do have a list of things I've been thinking about and
>> collecting, some from years ago. What I want to avoid though is making my
>> list the official list, or even any sort of majority of the official list.
>> In other words, I want this to be a community effort more than I want to
>> have everything on my pet list done.
>>
>> Still, I do like the idea of starting to compile a list of things we'd
>> all like to see go into the framework, and it's probably about time to do
>> that rather than having more random (less communicated) efforts on
>> different things.
>>
>> I'm thinking that a confluence/wiki page might be a better place for now
>> though, given the tentative nature of some of these things, and often a
>> need for discussion before more concrete plans are made.
>>
>> What do others think of this?
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Jun 22, 2008, at 12:07 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>
>> I think that Bruno's suggestion of creating a "framework-candidate-
>>> release-x" version in Jira would be useful, especially because there is no
>>> official (or even unofficial) list of features/fixes to go in the
>>> framework... probably each of us has its own preferences.
>>> Of course we should try to keep the list small.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Jun 21, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>
>>> David,
>>>> I think it will be beneficial to all contributors to have a list of
>>>> what we
>>>> would like to have included in the framework-only release, don't you?
>>>>
>>>> It will tell how far we are and to have, generally, more efforts on
>>>> these
>>>> tasks.
>>>> Why don't define the framework-only version in JIRA and schedule for
>>>> that
>>>> the task-list ?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> -Bruno
>>>>
>>>> 2008/6/20 David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> This looks good Adrian, thanks for working on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> This was on my own little list of things I'd like to see added to the
>>>>> framework before we do the framework-only release, so I'm really happy
>>>>> to
>>>>> see it in!
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Wish list for features in the upcoming framework release
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
+1 for Confluence
BTW, should we not add a <call-groovy> in minilang (or did I miss something) ?
Jacques
From: "David E Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>
> Like Jacopo hinted at, this is a community-driven effort and is
> therefore a bit chaotic.
>
> The main thing I was requesting from the community is to focus on the
> framework for a little while so we can stabilize and clean up the
> framework in preparation for a binary release of it (leading toward a
> good binary release of the whole project... but starting with
> something smaller and easier).
>
> Anyway, I do have a list of things I've been thinking about and
> collecting, some from years ago. What I want to avoid though is making
> my list the official list, or even any sort of majority of the
> official list. In other words, I want this to be a community effort
> more than I want to have everything on my pet list done.
>
> Still, I do like the idea of starting to compile a list of things we'd
> all like to see go into the framework, and it's probably about time to
> do that rather than having more random (less communicated) efforts on
> different things.
>
> I'm thinking that a confluence/wiki page might be a better place for
> now though, given the tentative nature of some of these things, and
> often a need for discussion before more concrete plans are made.
>
> What do others think of this?
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jun 22, 2008, at 12:07 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>
>> I think that Bruno's suggestion of creating a "framework-candidate-
>> release-x" version in Jira would be useful, especially because there
>> is no official (or even unofficial) list of features/fixes to go in
>> the framework... probably each of us has its own preferences.
>> Of course we should try to keep the list small.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Jun 21, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>
>>> David,
>>> I think it will be beneficial to all contributors to have a list of
>>> what we
>>> would like to have included in the framework-only release, don't you?
>>>
>>> It will tell how far we are and to have, generally, more efforts on
>>> these
>>> tasks.
>>> Why don't define the framework-only version in JIRA and schedule
>>> for that
>>> the task-list ?
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> -Bruno
>>>
>>> 2008/6/20 David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This looks good Adrian, thanks for working on it.
>>>>
>>>> This was on my own little list of things I'd like to see added to
>>>> the
>>>> framework before we do the framework-only release, so I'm really
>>>> happy to
>>>> see it in!
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
Re: Wish list for features in the upcoming framework release
Posted by David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Like Jacopo hinted at, this is a community-driven effort and is
therefore a bit chaotic.
The main thing I was requesting from the community is to focus on the
framework for a little while so we can stabilize and clean up the
framework in preparation for a binary release of it (leading toward a
good binary release of the whole project... but starting with
something smaller and easier).
Anyway, I do have a list of things I've been thinking about and
collecting, some from years ago. What I want to avoid though is making
my list the official list, or even any sort of majority of the
official list. In other words, I want this to be a community effort
more than I want to have everything on my pet list done.
Still, I do like the idea of starting to compile a list of things we'd
all like to see go into the framework, and it's probably about time to
do that rather than having more random (less communicated) efforts on
different things.
I'm thinking that a confluence/wiki page might be a better place for
now though, given the tentative nature of some of these things, and
often a need for discussion before more concrete plans are made.
What do others think of this?
-David
On Jun 22, 2008, at 12:07 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> I think that Bruno's suggestion of creating a "framework-candidate-
> release-x" version in Jira would be useful, especially because there
> is no official (or even unofficial) list of features/fixes to go in
> the framework... probably each of us has its own preferences.
> Of course we should try to keep the list small.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Jun 21, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>
>> David,
>> I think it will be beneficial to all contributors to have a list of
>> what we
>> would like to have included in the framework-only release, don't you?
>>
>> It will tell how far we are and to have, generally, more efforts on
>> these
>> tasks.
>> Why don't define the framework-only version in JIRA and schedule
>> for that
>> the task-list ?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> -Bruno
>>
>> 2008/6/20 David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>:
>>
>>>
>>> This looks good Adrian, thanks for working on it.
>>>
>>> This was on my own little list of things I'd like to see added to
>>> the
>>> framework before we do the framework-only release, so I'm really
>>> happy to
>>> see it in!
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: Wish list for features in the upcoming framework release
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.
I think the reason images are kept there is because they are considered
"static content" and could be located on another server - for
performance reasons.
-Adrian
Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> Adrian,
>
> thanks for doing this.
>
> Another thing I would like to discuss is to move the default location
> for catalog and product images (uploaded from the Catalog application)
> outside of the framework: from framework/images to somewhere in the
> runtime folder.
> This is just an idea, there could be technical issues (like loading
> resources that are outside of the "images" web application)... but I
> think that it would be fine to isolate the framework from any of the
> runtime events.
>
> Jacopo
>
>
> On Jul 9, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
>> I created a Jira issue for this and added one sub task -
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1867
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> Was anything done with this? Do we have a Jira issue or Wiki page?
>>> -Adrian
>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>> I think that Bruno's suggestion of creating a
>>>> "framework-candidate-release-x" version in Jira would be useful,
>>>> especially because there is no official (or even unofficial) list of
>>>> features/fixes to go in the framework... probably each of us has its
>>>> own preferences.
>>>> Of course we should try to keep the list small.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 21, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David,
>>>>> I think it will be beneficial to all contributors to have a list of
>>>>> what we
>>>>> would like to have included in the framework-only release, don't you?
>>>>>
>>>>> It will tell how far we are and to have, generally, more efforts on
>>>>> these
>>>>> tasks.
>>>>> Why don't define the framework-only version in JIRA and schedule
>>>>> for that
>>>>> the task-list ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>
>>>>> 2008/6/20 David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This looks good Adrian, thanks for working on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This was on my own little list of things I'd like to see added to the
>>>>>> framework before we do the framework-only release, so I'm really
>>>>>> happy to
>>>>>> see it in!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
Re: Wish list for features in the upcoming framework release
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <ja...@gmail.com>
> Adrian,
>
> thanks for doing this.
>
> Another thing I would like to discuss is to move the default location
> for catalog and product images (uploaded from the Catalog application)
> outside of the framework: from framework/images to somewhere in the
> runtime folder.
> This is just an idea, there could be technical issues (like loading
> resources that are outside of the "images" web application)... but I
> think that it would be fine to isolate the framework from any of the
> runtime events.
+1 (no ideas about the constraints)
Jacques
> Jacopo
>
>
> On Jul 9, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
>> I created a Jira issue for this and added one sub task -
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1867
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> Was anything done with this? Do we have a Jira issue or Wiki page?
>>> -Adrian
>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>> I think that Bruno's suggestion of creating a "framework-candidate-
>>>> release-x" version in Jira would be useful, especially because
>>>> there is no official (or even unofficial) list of features/fixes
>>>> to go in the framework... probably each of us has its own
>>>> preferences.
>>>> Of course we should try to keep the list small.
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 21, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David,
>>>>> I think it will be beneficial to all contributors to have a list
>>>>> of what we
>>>>> would like to have included in the framework-only release, don't
>>>>> you?
>>>>>
>>>>> It will tell how far we are and to have, generally, more efforts
>>>>> on these
>>>>> tasks.
>>>>> Why don't define the framework-only version in JIRA and schedule
>>>>> for that
>>>>> the task-list ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>
>>>>> 2008/6/20 David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This looks good Adrian, thanks for working on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This was on my own little list of things I'd like to see added
>>>>>> to the
>>>>>> framework before we do the framework-only release, so I'm really
>>>>>> happy to
>>>>>> see it in!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
Re: Wish list for features in the upcoming framework release
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@gmail.com>.
Adrian,
thanks for doing this.
Another thing I would like to discuss is to move the default location
for catalog and product images (uploaded from the Catalog application)
outside of the framework: from framework/images to somewhere in the
runtime folder.
This is just an idea, there could be technical issues (like loading
resources that are outside of the "images" web application)... but I
think that it would be fine to isolate the framework from any of the
runtime events.
Jacopo
On Jul 9, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> I created a Jira issue for this and added one sub task -
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1867
>
> -Adrian
>
> Adrian Crum wrote:
>> Was anything done with this? Do we have a Jira issue or Wiki page?
>> -Adrian
>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> I think that Bruno's suggestion of creating a "framework-candidate-
>>> release-x" version in Jira would be useful, especially because
>>> there is no official (or even unofficial) list of features/fixes
>>> to go in the framework... probably each of us has its own
>>> preferences.
>>> Of course we should try to keep the list small.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Jun 21, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>
>>>> David,
>>>> I think it will be beneficial to all contributors to have a list
>>>> of what we
>>>> would like to have included in the framework-only release, don't
>>>> you?
>>>>
>>>> It will tell how far we are and to have, generally, more efforts
>>>> on these
>>>> tasks.
>>>> Why don't define the framework-only version in JIRA and schedule
>>>> for that
>>>> the task-list ?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> -Bruno
>>>>
>>>> 2008/6/20 David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This looks good Adrian, thanks for working on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> This was on my own little list of things I'd like to see added
>>>>> to the
>>>>> framework before we do the framework-only release, so I'm really
>>>>> happy to
>>>>> see it in!
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
Re: Wish list for features in the upcoming framework release
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.
I created a Jira issue for this and added one sub task -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1867
-Adrian
Adrian Crum wrote:
> Was anything done with this? Do we have a Jira issue or Wiki page?
>
> -Adrian
>
> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> I think that Bruno's suggestion of creating a
>> "framework-candidate-release-x" version in Jira would be useful,
>> especially because there is no official (or even unofficial) list of
>> features/fixes to go in the framework... probably each of us has its
>> own preferences.
>> Of course we should try to keep the list small.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Jun 21, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>
>>> David,
>>> I think it will be beneficial to all contributors to have a list of
>>> what we
>>> would like to have included in the framework-only release, don't you?
>>>
>>> It will tell how far we are and to have, generally, more efforts on
>>> these
>>> tasks.
>>> Why don't define the framework-only version in JIRA and schedule for
>>> that
>>> the task-list ?
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> -Bruno
>>>
>>> 2008/6/20 David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This looks good Adrian, thanks for working on it.
>>>>
>>>> This was on my own little list of things I'd like to see added to the
>>>> framework before we do the framework-only release, so I'm really
>>>> happy to
>>>> see it in!
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Wish list for features in the upcoming framework release
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.
Was anything done with this? Do we have a Jira issue or Wiki page?
-Adrian
Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> I think that Bruno's suggestion of creating a
> "framework-candidate-release-x" version in Jira would be useful,
> especially because there is no official (or even unofficial) list of
> features/fixes to go in the framework... probably each of us has its own
> preferences.
> Of course we should try to keep the list small.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Jun 21, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>
>> David,
>> I think it will be beneficial to all contributors to have a list of
>> what we
>> would like to have included in the framework-only release, don't you?
>>
>> It will tell how far we are and to have, generally, more efforts on these
>> tasks.
>> Why don't define the framework-only version in JIRA and schedule for that
>> the task-list ?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> -Bruno
>>
>> 2008/6/20 David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>:
>>
>>>
>>> This looks good Adrian, thanks for working on it.
>>>
>>> This was on my own little list of things I'd like to see added to the
>>> framework before we do the framework-only release, so I'm really
>>> happy to
>>> see it in!
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>