You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com> on 2008/04/14 20:04:10 UTC
appheaderTemplate vs applicationMenuName
Hi,
it seems that the framework let the user use two different ways to build an
application header both writing a .ftl file or a menu in a .xml file.
What is the preferred method for new applications?
Is the menu stuff a replacement for the .ftl style header?
-Bruno
Re: appheaderTemplate vs applicationMenuName
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Yes legacy, except, as Jacopo pointed out, when it comes to do sophisticated pages, like in ecommerce for instance...
Jacques
From: "BJ Freeman" <bj...@free-man.net>
> Yes.
> FTL menu are legacy
>
> Bruno Busco sent the following on 4/14/2008 11:04 AM:
>> Hi,
>> it seems that the framework let the user use two different ways to build an
>> application header both writing a .ftl file or a menu in a .xml file.
>> What is the preferred method for new applications?
>> Is the menu stuff a replacement for the .ftl style header?
>>
>> -Bruno
>>
>
Re: appheaderTemplate vs applicationMenuName
Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
Yes.
FTL menu are legacy
Bruno Busco sent the following on 4/14/2008 11:04 AM:
> Hi,
> it seems that the framework let the user use two different ways to build an
> application header both writing a .ftl file or a menu in a .xml file.
> What is the preferred method for new applications?
> Is the menu stuff a replacement for the .ftl style header?
>
> -Bruno
>
Re: appheaderTemplate vs applicationMenuName
Posted by Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>.
I had a feeling that this was the new trend...
Thank you for confirmation! ;-)
-Bruno
2008/4/15, Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> On Apr 14, 2008, at 8:04 PM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > it seems that the framework let the user use two different ways to build
> > an
> > application header both writing a .ftl file or a menu in a .xml file.
> > What is the preferred method for new applications?
> >
>
> The Widget Way for all the backoffice application. For ecomerce ftl are
> the best solution, because you have greater flexibility in the layout
> definition.
>
>
> > Is the menu stuff a replacement for the .ftl style header?
> > -Bruno
> >
>
>
Re: appheaderTemplate vs applicationMenuName
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 14, 2008, at 8:04 PM, Bruno Busco wrote:
> Hi,
> it seems that the framework let the user use two different ways to
> build an
> application header both writing a .ftl file or a menu in a .xml file.
> What is the preferred method for new applications?
The Widget Way for all the backoffice application. For ecomerce ftl
are the best solution, because you have greater flexibility in the
layout definition.
>
> Is the menu stuff a replacement for the .ftl style header?
> -Bruno