You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com> on 2010/12/15 18:52:59 UTC
Framework Independence
I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm
trying to get a framework-only installation to run.
There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components.
Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The
online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue.
Should we move the content component to the framework?
-Adrian
Re: Framework Independence
Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
I agree this is the way to go. Certain parts of certain application components should have been in the framework from the beginning, but certainly not all of them. Splitting out those specific parts and putting them in framework components as needed is the way to go.
-David
On Dec 15, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
> I really think you'd need to split the content component into two, simply moving it to the framework would probably introduce a whole other set of dependencies to deal with.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> On 16/12/2010, at 7:40 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
>> To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs.
>>
>> I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>> first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level.
>>> Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed.
>>> when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user.
>>>
>>> =========================
>>> BJ Freeman
>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>
>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>>
>>>
>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM:
>>>> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm
>>>> trying to get a framework-only installation to run.
>>>>
>>>> There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components.
>>>> Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The
>>>> online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue.
>>>> Should we move the content component to the framework?
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: Framework Independence
Posted by Nicolas Malin <ma...@librenberry.net>.
I agree. It possible to split content to framework component and keep
functionnal on application but I think this operation It's not easy and
I haven't suggest how do this.
Nicolas
Le 15/12/2010 20:15, Adrian Crum a écrit :
> At first glance it looks that way. All we really need in the framework
> are the content entities and their CRUD services.
>
> -Adrian
>
> On 12/15/2010 11:04 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>> I really think you'd need to split the content component into two,
>> simply moving it to the framework would probably introduce a whole
>> other set of dependencies to deal with.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> HotWax Media
>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>
>> On 16/12/2010, at 7:40 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>
>>> To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder
>>> to run by themselves - without the components found in the
>>> applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs.
>>>
>>> I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a
>>> framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to
>>> disable the components in the applications folder and still have
>>> OFBiz run.
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>> first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework
>>>> level.
>>>> Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put
>>>> installed.
>>>> when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user.
>>>>
>>>> =========================
>>>> BJ Freeman
>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
>>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>>
>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM:
>>>>> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm
>>>>> trying to get a framework-only installation to run.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components.
>>>>> Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly
>>>>> easy. The
>>>>> online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue.
>>>>> Should we move the content component to the framework?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
--
Nicolas MALIN
Consultant
Tél : 06.17.66.40.06
Site projet : http://www.neogia.org/
-------
Société LibrenBerry
Tél : 02.48.02.56.12
Site : http://www.librenberry.net/
Re: Framework Independence
Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
the pattern of having the entities and services specific to a component
will be broken. so a test file in each folder about were the entities
and services are should be included.
you can take the webapp/content/docbooks and put in common since it is
standalone engine for created docbooks output.
suggest put in webapps or common.
=========================
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 11:15 AM:
> At first glance it looks that way. All we really need in the framework
> are the content entities and their CRUD services.
>
> -Adrian
>
> On 12/15/2010 11:04 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>> I really think you'd need to split the content component into two,
>> simply moving it to the framework would probably introduce a whole
>> other set of dependencies to deal with.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> HotWax Media
>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>
>> On 16/12/2010, at 7:40 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>
>>> To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder
>>> to run by themselves - without the components found in the
>>> applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs.
>>>
>>> I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a
>>> framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to
>>> disable the components in the applications folder and still have
>>> OFBiz run.
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>> first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework
>>>> level.
>>>> Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put
>>>> installed.
>>>> when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user.
>>>>
>>>> =========================
>>>> BJ Freeman
>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
>>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>>
>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM:
>>>>> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm
>>>>> trying to get a framework-only installation to run.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components.
>>>>> Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy.
>>>>> The
>>>>> online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue.
>>>>> Should we move the content component to the framework?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
Re: Framework Independence
Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
I'm guessing you'd also need ContentWorker and DataResourceWorker.
Regards
Scott
On 16/12/2010, at 8:15 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> At first glance it looks that way. All we really need in the framework are the content entities and their CRUD services.
>
> -Adrian
>
> On 12/15/2010 11:04 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>> I really think you'd need to split the content component into two, simply moving it to the framework would probably introduce a whole other set of dependencies to deal with.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> HotWax Media
>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>
>> On 16/12/2010, at 7:40 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>
>>> To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs.
>>>
>>> I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run.
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>> first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level.
>>>> Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed.
>>>> when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user.
>>>>
>>>> =========================
>>>> BJ Freeman
>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
>>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>>
>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM:
>>>>> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm
>>>>> trying to get a framework-only installation to run.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components.
>>>>> Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The
>>>>> online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue.
>>>>> Should we move the content component to the framework?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
Re: Framework Independence
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.
At first glance it looks that way. All we really need in the framework
are the content entities and their CRUD services.
-Adrian
On 12/15/2010 11:04 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
> I really think you'd need to split the content component into two, simply moving it to the framework would probably introduce a whole other set of dependencies to deal with.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> On 16/12/2010, at 7:40 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
>> To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs.
>>
>> I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>> first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level.
>>> Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed.
>>> when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user.
>>>
>>> =========================
>>> BJ Freeman
>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>
>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>>
>>>
>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM:
>>>> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm
>>>> trying to get a framework-only installation to run.
>>>>
>>>> There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components.
>>>> Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The
>>>> online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue.
>>>> Should we move the content component to the framework?
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: Framework Independence
Posted by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
I really think you'd need to split the content component into two, simply moving it to the framework would probably introduce a whole other set of dependencies to deal with.
Regards
Scott
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
On 16/12/2010, at 7:40 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to run by themselves - without the components found in the applications folder. Some of the framework components have UIs.
>
> I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run.
>
> -Adrian
>
> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>> first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level.
>> Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed.
>> when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user.
>>
>> =========================
>> BJ Freeman
>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>
>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>
>>
>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM:
>>> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm
>>> trying to get a framework-only installation to run.
>>>
>>> There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components.
>>> Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The
>>> online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue.
>>> Should we move the content component to the framework?
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>
>>
Re: Framework Independence
Posted by Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>.
Great! ;-)
2010/12/18 Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com>
> I will be working on that today.
>
> -Adrian
>
> --- On Sat, 12/18/10, Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> wrote:
> > IMO the best way to go at this point
> > is to move the ui for the administration of user logins and
> > permissions from the party to the webtools web application.
> > In this way, in a framework only setup, we will have some
> > screens to create new user accounts and administer them. I
> > don't think that we have to provide screens addressed to
> > users (not administrators) to manage their user preferences:
> > the nature of this ui would be too much dependent on the
> > nature of the custom applications that will be used with the
> > framework.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Jacopo
> >
> > On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Bruno Busco wrote:
> >
> > > By clicking on the party's name in the header the user
> > is directed to this
> > > screen:
> > >
> https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin
> > >
> > > Here there are lots of links and information related
> > to all kind of things:
> > > orders, invoices, visits etc.
> > > In a framework-only installation this screen should
> > only allow the user to
> > > access to its personal information, password,
> > preferences etc.
> > > How could we get this?
> > > Could we replace this screen with a (non
> > user-editable) PortalPage where
> > > every installed application could add their
> > screenlets?
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Bruno
> > >
> > > 2010/12/16 David E Jones <de...@me.com>
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the
> > framework more (or
> > >> totally) independent from the applications and
> > specialpurpose components.
> > >> The only question is the best way to do that, and
> > it looks like as far as a
> > >> general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts
> > from application
> > >> components to framework components) a fair
> > consensus is being reached
> > >> quickly.
> > >>
> > >> Of course, this is helped by lots of previous
> > discussion on this topic.
> > >>
> > >> -David
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I don't think you will find a consensus so
> > just need to branch your own
> > >> frame work as I did.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> =========================
> > >>> BJ Freeman
> > >>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier
> > Automation <
> > >> http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
> > >>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
> > >>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
> > >>>
> > >>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010
> > 10:40 AM:
> > >>>> To clarify, I'm trying to get the
> > components in the framework folder to
> > >>>> run by themselves - without the components
> > found in the applications
> > >>>> folder. Some of the framework components
> > have UIs.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I understand everyone has a different
> > opinion on what constitutes a
> > >>>> framework, so I don't want to rehash that
> > discussion. I just want to
> > >>>> disable the components in the applications
> > folder and still have OFBiz
> > >> run.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -Adrian
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
> > >>>>> first question is should there be any
> > UI activity at the framework
> > >> level.
> > >>>>> Should not it just be the support to
> > allow a UI system to put
> > >> installed.
> > >>>>> when I mean UI I am talking about any
> > interaction to the user.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> =========================
> > >>>>> BJ Freeman
> > >>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier
> > Automation
> > >>>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
> > >>>>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
> > >>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on
> > 12/15/2010 9:52 AM:
> > >>>>>> I'm working on a project that
> > requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm
> > >>>>>> trying to get a framework-only
> > installation to run.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> There are a lot of dependencies on
> > the party and content components.
> > >>>>>> Removing dependencies on the party
> > component should be fairly easy.
> > >> The
> > >>>>>> online help system uses the
> > content component, so that is an issue.
> > >>>>>> Should we move the content
> > component to the framework?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> -Adrian
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Framework Independence
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.
I ended up parameterizing the form's target attribute to get the results
I needed.
I will be offline for the holiday, then I will resume work on this next
week.
-Adrian
On 12/21/2010 12:35 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> I am nearly finished with the security UI artifacts move. I have one
> issue preventing me from finishing it and I need some help from the
> community.
>
> The updated code has Party Manager reusing security screens and forms
> from the common component. It all works great with a few exceptions. The
> user login screenlet in the View Profile page has links to special
> screens for adding/editing user logins and assigning user logins to
> security groups. The forms in those screens are from the common
> component and they call shared security events - so the user is returned
> to the shared security screen and not the Party Manager special screen.
> I need a way to dynamically define the "success" response view on an event.
>
> To illustrate, this request:
>
> <request-map uri="ProfileEditUserLogin">
> <security https="true" auth="true"/>
> <response name="success" type="view" value="ProfileEditUserLogin"/>
> </request-map>
>
> will invoke this event when the user clicks Save:
>
> <request-map uri="updateUserLoginSecurity">
> <security https="true" auth="true"/>
> <event type="service" path="" invoke="updateUserLoginSecurity"/>
> <response name="success" type="view" value="EditUserLogin"/>
> <response name="error" type="view" value="EditUserLogin"/>
> </request-map>
>
> because Party Manager shares a security-related controller XML file and
> screen widgets. I need the updateUserLoginSecurity event to return to
> the ProfileEditUserLogin screen instead of EditUserLogin - but without
> changing the shared updateUserLoginSecurity request-map.
>
> I thought I could use the view-save and view-last stuff, but I can't
> find any documentation on how it works. I tried using it based on
> existing code but I'm not having any success.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> -Adrian
>
>
>
> On 12/18/2010 7:18 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>> I will be working on that today.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> --- On Sat, 12/18/10, Jacopo
>> Cappellato<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>> IMO the best way to go at this point
>>> is to move the ui for the administration of user logins and
>>> permissions from the party to the webtools web application.
>>> In this way, in a framework only setup, we will have some
>>> screens to create new user accounts and administer them. I
>>> don't think that we have to provide screens addressed to
>>> users (not administrators) to manage their user preferences:
>>> the nature of this ui would be too much dependent on the
>>> nature of the custom applications that will be used with the
>>> framework.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>
>>>> By clicking on the party's name in the header the user
>>> is directed to this
>>>> screen:
>>>> https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here there are lots of links and information related
>>> to all kind of things:
>>>> orders, invoices, visits etc.
>>>> In a framework-only installation this screen should
>>> only allow the user to
>>>> access to its personal information, password,
>>> preferences etc.
>>>> How could we get this?
>>>> Could we replace this screen with a (non
>>> user-editable) PortalPage where
>>>> every installed application could add their
>>> screenlets?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Bruno
>>>>
>>>> 2010/12/16 David E Jones<de...@me.com>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the
>>> framework more (or
>>>>> totally) independent from the applications and
>>> specialpurpose components.
>>>>> The only question is the best way to do that, and
>>> it looks like as far as a
>>>>> general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts
>>> from application
>>>>> components to framework components) a fair
>>> consensus is being reached
>>>>> quickly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, this is helped by lots of previous
>>> discussion on this topic.
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think you will find a consensus so
>>> just need to branch your own
>>>>> frame work as I did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =========================
>>>>>> BJ Freeman
>>>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier
>>> Automation<
>>>>> http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>>>>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010
>>> 10:40 AM:
>>>>>>> To clarify, I'm trying to get the
>>> components in the framework folder to
>>>>>>> run by themselves - without the components
>>> found in the applications
>>>>>>> folder. Some of the framework components
>>> have UIs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I understand everyone has a different
>>> opinion on what constitutes a
>>>>>>> framework, so I don't want to rehash that
>>> discussion. I just want to
>>>>>>> disable the components in the applications
>>> folder and still have OFBiz
>>>>> run.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>>>>> first question is should there be any
>>> UI activity at the framework
>>>>> level.
>>>>>>>> Should not it just be the support to
>>> allow a UI system to put
>>>>> installed.
>>>>>>>> when I mean UI I am talking about any
>>> interaction to the user.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> =========================
>>>>>>>> BJ Freeman
>>>>>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier
>>> Automation
>>>>>>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>>>>>>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>>>>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on
>>> 12/15/2010 9:52 AM:
>>>>>>>>> I'm working on a project that
>>> requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm
>>>>>>>>> trying to get a framework-only
>>> installation to run.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are a lot of dependencies on
>>> the party and content components.
>>>>>>>>> Removing dependencies on the party
>>> component should be fairly easy.
>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>> online help system uses the
>>> content component, so that is an issue.
>>>>>>>>> Should we move the content
>>> component to the framework?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Framework Independence
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.
I have looked at a number of existing examples, but I still don't know
how it works or what I need to do to solve my problem.
-Adrian
On 12/21/2010 1:18 PM, Bruno Busco wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
> did you look into portla-controller.xml ?
> I used several save-last-view there.
>
> -Bruno
>
> 2010/12/21 Adrian Crum<ad...@hlmksw.com>
>
>> I am nearly finished with the security UI artifacts move. I have one issue
>> preventing me from finishing it and I need some help from the community.
>>
>> The updated code has Party Manager reusing security screens and forms from
>> the common component. It all works great with a few exceptions. The user
>> login screenlet in the View Profile page has links to special screens for
>> adding/editing user logins and assigning user logins to security groups. The
>> forms in those screens are from the common component and they call shared
>> security events - so the user is returned to the shared security screen and
>> not the Party Manager special screen. I need a way to dynamically define the
>> "success" response view on an event.
>>
>> To illustrate, this request:
>>
>> <request-map uri="ProfileEditUserLogin">
>> <security https="true" auth="true"/>
>> <response name="success" type="view" value="ProfileEditUserLogin"/>
>> </request-map>
>>
>> will invoke this event when the user clicks Save:
>>
>> <request-map uri="updateUserLoginSecurity">
>> <security https="true" auth="true"/>
>> <event type="service" path="" invoke="updateUserLoginSecurity"/>
>> <response name="success" type="view" value="EditUserLogin"/>
>> <response name="error" type="view" value="EditUserLogin"/>
>> </request-map>
>>
>> because Party Manager shares a security-related controller XML file and
>> screen widgets. I need the updateUserLoginSecurity event to return to the
>> ProfileEditUserLogin screen instead of EditUserLogin - but without changing
>> the shared updateUserLoginSecurity request-map.
>>
>> I thought I could use the view-save and view-last stuff, but I can't find
>> any documentation on how it works. I tried using it based on existing code
>> but I'm not having any success.
>>
>> Any ideas?
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/18/2010 7:18 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>
>>> I will be working on that today.
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>> --- On Sat, 12/18/10, Jacopo Cappellato<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> IMO the best way to go at this point
>>>> is to move the ui for the administration of user logins and
>>>> permissions from the party to the webtools web application.
>>>> In this way, in a framework only setup, we will have some
>>>> screens to create new user accounts and administer them. I
>>>> don't think that we have to provide screens addressed to
>>>> users (not administrators) to manage their user preferences:
>>>> the nature of this ui would be too much dependent on the
>>>> nature of the custom applications that will be used with the
>>>> framework.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>>
>>>> By clicking on the party's name in the header the user
>>>>>
>>>> is directed to this
>>>>
>>>>> screen:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin
>>>>>
>>>>> Here there are lots of links and information related
>>>>>
>>>> to all kind of things:
>>>>
>>>>> orders, invoices, visits etc.
>>>>> In a framework-only installation this screen should
>>>>>
>>>> only allow the user to
>>>>
>>>>> access to its personal information, password,
>>>>>
>>>> preferences etc.
>>>>
>>>>> How could we get this?
>>>>> Could we replace this screen with a (non
>>>>>
>>>> user-editable) PortalPage where
>>>>
>>>>> every installed application could add their
>>>>>
>>>> screenlets?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> Bruno
>>>>>
>>>>> 2010/12/16 David E Jones<de...@me.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the
>>>>>>
>>>>> framework more (or
>>>>
>>>>> totally) independent from the applications and
>>>>>>
>>>>> specialpurpose components.
>>>>
>>>>> The only question is the best way to do that, and
>>>>>>
>>>>> it looks like as far as a
>>>>
>>>>> general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts
>>>>>>
>>>>> from application
>>>>
>>>>> components to framework components) a fair
>>>>>>
>>>>> consensus is being reached
>>>>
>>>>> quickly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, this is helped by lots of previous
>>>>>>
>>>>> discussion on this topic.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think you will find a consensus so
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> just need to branch your own
>>>>
>>>>> frame work as I did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> =========================
>>>>>>> BJ Freeman
>>>>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Automation<
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>>>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 10:40 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> To clarify, I'm trying to get the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> components in the framework folder to
>>>>
>>>>> run by themselves - without the components
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> found in the applications
>>>>
>>>>> folder. Some of the framework components
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> have UIs.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I understand everyone has a different
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> opinion on what constitutes a
>>>>
>>>>> framework, so I don't want to rehash that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> discussion. I just want to
>>>>
>>>>> disable the components in the applications
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> folder and still have OFBiz
>>>>
>>>>> run.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> first question is should there be any
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> UI activity at the framework
>>>>
>>>>> level.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Should not it just be the support to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> allow a UI system to put
>>>>
>>>>> installed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> when I mean UI I am talking about any
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> interaction to the user.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> =========================
>>>>>>>>> BJ Freeman
>>>>>>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Automation
>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>>>>>>>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>>>>>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 12/15/2010 9:52 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm working on a project that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm
>>>>
>>>>> trying to get a framework-only
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> installation to run.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are a lot of dependencies on
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the party and content components.
>>>>
>>>>> Removing dependencies on the party
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> component should be fairly easy.
>>>>
>>>>> The
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> online help system uses the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> content component, so that is an issue.
>>>>
>>>>> Should we move the content
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> component to the framework?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: Framework Independence
Posted by Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>.
Hi Adrian,
did you look into portla-controller.xml ?
I used several save-last-view there.
-Bruno
2010/12/21 Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>
> I am nearly finished with the security UI artifacts move. I have one issue
> preventing me from finishing it and I need some help from the community.
>
> The updated code has Party Manager reusing security screens and forms from
> the common component. It all works great with a few exceptions. The user
> login screenlet in the View Profile page has links to special screens for
> adding/editing user logins and assigning user logins to security groups. The
> forms in those screens are from the common component and they call shared
> security events - so the user is returned to the shared security screen and
> not the Party Manager special screen. I need a way to dynamically define the
> "success" response view on an event.
>
> To illustrate, this request:
>
> <request-map uri="ProfileEditUserLogin">
> <security https="true" auth="true"/>
> <response name="success" type="view" value="ProfileEditUserLogin"/>
> </request-map>
>
> will invoke this event when the user clicks Save:
>
> <request-map uri="updateUserLoginSecurity">
> <security https="true" auth="true"/>
> <event type="service" path="" invoke="updateUserLoginSecurity"/>
> <response name="success" type="view" value="EditUserLogin"/>
> <response name="error" type="view" value="EditUserLogin"/>
> </request-map>
>
> because Party Manager shares a security-related controller XML file and
> screen widgets. I need the updateUserLoginSecurity event to return to the
> ProfileEditUserLogin screen instead of EditUserLogin - but without changing
> the shared updateUserLoginSecurity request-map.
>
> I thought I could use the view-save and view-last stuff, but I can't find
> any documentation on how it works. I tried using it based on existing code
> but I'm not having any success.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> -Adrian
>
>
>
>
> On 12/18/2010 7:18 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
>> I will be working on that today.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> --- On Sat, 12/18/10, Jacopo Cappellato<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> IMO the best way to go at this point
>>> is to move the ui for the administration of user logins and
>>> permissions from the party to the webtools web application.
>>> In this way, in a framework only setup, we will have some
>>> screens to create new user accounts and administer them. I
>>> don't think that we have to provide screens addressed to
>>> users (not administrators) to manage their user preferences:
>>> the nature of this ui would be too much dependent on the
>>> nature of the custom applications that will be used with the
>>> framework.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>>
>>> By clicking on the party's name in the header the user
>>>>
>>> is directed to this
>>>
>>>> screen:
>>>>
>>>> https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin
>>>>
>>>> Here there are lots of links and information related
>>>>
>>> to all kind of things:
>>>
>>>> orders, invoices, visits etc.
>>>> In a framework-only installation this screen should
>>>>
>>> only allow the user to
>>>
>>>> access to its personal information, password,
>>>>
>>> preferences etc.
>>>
>>>> How could we get this?
>>>> Could we replace this screen with a (non
>>>>
>>> user-editable) PortalPage where
>>>
>>>> every installed application could add their
>>>>
>>> screenlets?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Bruno
>>>>
>>>> 2010/12/16 David E Jones<de...@me.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the
>>>>>
>>>> framework more (or
>>>
>>>> totally) independent from the applications and
>>>>>
>>>> specialpurpose components.
>>>
>>>> The only question is the best way to do that, and
>>>>>
>>>> it looks like as far as a
>>>
>>>> general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts
>>>>>
>>>> from application
>>>
>>>> components to framework components) a fair
>>>>>
>>>> consensus is being reached
>>>
>>>> quickly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, this is helped by lots of previous
>>>>>
>>>> discussion on this topic.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think you will find a consensus so
>>>>>>
>>>>> just need to branch your own
>>>
>>>> frame work as I did.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =========================
>>>>>> BJ Freeman
>>>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier
>>>>>>
>>>>> Automation<
>>>
>>>> http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010
>>>>>>
>>>>> 10:40 AM:
>>>
>>>> To clarify, I'm trying to get the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> components in the framework folder to
>>>
>>>> run by themselves - without the components
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> found in the applications
>>>
>>>> folder. Some of the framework components
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> have UIs.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> I understand everyone has a different
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> opinion on what constitutes a
>>>
>>>> framework, so I don't want to rehash that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> discussion. I just want to
>>>
>>>> disable the components in the applications
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> folder and still have OFBiz
>>>
>>>> run.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> first question is should there be any
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> UI activity at the framework
>>>
>>>> level.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Should not it just be the support to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> allow a UI system to put
>>>
>>>> installed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> when I mean UI I am talking about any
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> interaction to the user.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> =========================
>>>>>>>> BJ Freeman
>>>>>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Automation
>>>
>>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>>>>>>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>>>>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 12/15/2010 9:52 AM:
>>>
>>>> I'm working on a project that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm
>>>
>>>> trying to get a framework-only
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> installation to run.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are a lot of dependencies on
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the party and content components.
>>>
>>>> Removing dependencies on the party
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> component should be fairly easy.
>>>
>>>> The
>>>>>
>>>>>> online help system uses the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> content component, so that is an issue.
>>>
>>>> Should we move the content
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> component to the framework?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: Framework Independence
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.
I am nearly finished with the security UI artifacts move. I have one
issue preventing me from finishing it and I need some help from the
community.
The updated code has Party Manager reusing security screens and forms
from the common component. It all works great with a few exceptions. The
user login screenlet in the View Profile page has links to special
screens for adding/editing user logins and assigning user logins to
security groups. The forms in those screens are from the common
component and they call shared security events - so the user is returned
to the shared security screen and not the Party Manager special screen.
I need a way to dynamically define the "success" response view on an event.
To illustrate, this request:
<request-map uri="ProfileEditUserLogin">
<security https="true" auth="true"/>
<response name="success" type="view" value="ProfileEditUserLogin"/>
</request-map>
will invoke this event when the user clicks Save:
<request-map uri="updateUserLoginSecurity">
<security https="true" auth="true"/>
<event type="service" path="" invoke="updateUserLoginSecurity"/>
<response name="success" type="view" value="EditUserLogin"/>
<response name="error" type="view" value="EditUserLogin"/>
</request-map>
because Party Manager shares a security-related controller XML file and
screen widgets. I need the updateUserLoginSecurity event to return to
the ProfileEditUserLogin screen instead of EditUserLogin - but without
changing the shared updateUserLoginSecurity request-map.
I thought I could use the view-save and view-last stuff, but I can't
find any documentation on how it works. I tried using it based on
existing code but I'm not having any success.
Any ideas?
-Adrian
On 12/18/2010 7:18 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> I will be working on that today.
>
> -Adrian
>
> --- On Sat, 12/18/10, Jacopo Cappellato<ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>> IMO the best way to go at this point
>> is to move the ui for the administration of user logins and
>> permissions from the party to the webtools web application.
>> In this way, in a framework only setup, we will have some
>> screens to create new user accounts and administer them. I
>> don't think that we have to provide screens addressed to
>> users (not administrators) to manage their user preferences:
>> the nature of this ui would be too much dependent on the
>> nature of the custom applications that will be used with the
>> framework.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>>
>>> By clicking on the party's name in the header the user
>> is directed to this
>>> screen:
>>> https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin
>>>
>>> Here there are lots of links and information related
>> to all kind of things:
>>> orders, invoices, visits etc.
>>> In a framework-only installation this screen should
>> only allow the user to
>>> access to its personal information, password,
>> preferences etc.
>>> How could we get this?
>>> Could we replace this screen with a (non
>> user-editable) PortalPage where
>>> every installed application could add their
>> screenlets?
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>> 2010/12/16 David E Jones<de...@me.com>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the
>> framework more (or
>>>> totally) independent from the applications and
>> specialpurpose components.
>>>> The only question is the best way to do that, and
>> it looks like as far as a
>>>> general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts
>> from application
>>>> components to framework components) a fair
>> consensus is being reached
>>>> quickly.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, this is helped by lots of previous
>> discussion on this topic.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think you will find a consensus so
>> just need to branch your own
>>>> frame work as I did.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> =========================
>>>>> BJ Freeman
>>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier
>> Automation<
>>>> http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>>>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>>>
>>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010
>> 10:40 AM:
>>>>>> To clarify, I'm trying to get the
>> components in the framework folder to
>>>>>> run by themselves - without the components
>> found in the applications
>>>>>> folder. Some of the framework components
>> have UIs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand everyone has a different
>> opinion on what constitutes a
>>>>>> framework, so I don't want to rehash that
>> discussion. I just want to
>>>>>> disable the components in the applications
>> folder and still have OFBiz
>>>> run.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>>>> first question is should there be any
>> UI activity at the framework
>>>> level.
>>>>>>> Should not it just be the support to
>> allow a UI system to put
>>>> installed.
>>>>>>> when I mean UI I am talking about any
>> interaction to the user.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> =========================
>>>>>>> BJ Freeman
>>>>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier
>> Automation
>>>>>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>>>>>>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>>>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on
>> 12/15/2010 9:52 AM:
>>>>>>>> I'm working on a project that
>> requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm
>>>>>>>> trying to get a framework-only
>> installation to run.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are a lot of dependencies on
>> the party and content components.
>>>>>>>> Removing dependencies on the party
>> component should be fairly easy.
>>>> The
>>>>>>>> online help system uses the
>> content component, so that is an issue.
>>>>>>>> Should we move the content
>> component to the framework?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: Framework Independence
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com>.
The security-related UI artifacts have been moved to the common component and the Web Tools app now has a security UI in rev 1053259.
The Party Manager Security tab duplicates the new Web Tools screens, and it is redundant - but I left it in there. It might be eligible for removal. I also left the original widget files in the partmgr component in case we need to go back to them for some reason. If all goes well, I will delete them in the future.
-Adrian
--- On Sat, 12/18/10, Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I will be working on that today.
>
> -Adrian
>
> --- On Sat, 12/18/10, Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> wrote:
> > IMO the best way to go at this point
> > is to move the ui for the administration of user
> logins and
> > permissions from the party to the webtools web
> application.
> > In this way, in a framework only setup, we will have
> some
> > screens to create new user accounts and administer
> them. I
> > don't think that we have to provide screens addressed
> to
> > users (not administrators) to manage their user
> preferences:
> > the nature of this ui would be too much dependent on
> the
> > nature of the custom applications that will be used
> with the
> > framework.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Jacopo
> >
> > On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Bruno Busco wrote:
> >
> > > By clicking on the party's name in the header the
> user
> > is directed to this
> > > screen:
> > > https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin
> > >
> > > Here there are lots of links and information
> related
> > to all kind of things:
> > > orders, invoices, visits etc.
> > > In a framework-only installation this screen
> should
> > only allow the user to
> > > access to its personal information, password,
> > preferences etc.
> > > How could we get this?
> > > Could we replace this screen with a (non
> > user-editable) PortalPage where
> > > every installed application could add their
> > screenlets?
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Bruno
> > >
> > > 2010/12/16 David E Jones <de...@me.com>
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making
> the
> > framework more (or
> > >> totally) independent from the applications
> and
> > specialpurpose components.
> > >> The only question is the best way to do that,
> and
> > it looks like as far as a
> > >> general approach goes (moving minimal needed
> parts
> > from application
> > >> components to framework components) a fair
> > consensus is being reached
> > >> quickly.
> > >>
> > >> Of course, this is helped by lots of
> previous
> > discussion on this topic.
> > >>
> > >> -David
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I don't think you will find a consensus
> so
> > just need to branch your own
> > >> frame work as I did.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> =========================
> > >>> BJ Freeman
> > >>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier
> > Automation <
> > >> http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
> > >>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
> > >>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
> > >>>
> > >>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Adrian Crum sent the following on
> 12/15/2010
> > 10:40 AM:
> > >>>> To clarify, I'm trying to get the
> > components in the framework folder to
> > >>>> run by themselves - without the
> components
> > found in the applications
> > >>>> folder. Some of the framework
> components
> > have UIs.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I understand everyone has a
> different
> > opinion on what constitutes a
> > >>>> framework, so I don't want to rehash
> that
> > discussion. I just want to
> > >>>> disable the components in the
> applications
> > folder and still have OFBiz
> > >> run.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -Adrian
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman
> wrote:
> > >>>>> first question is should there be
> any
> > UI activity at the framework
> > >> level.
> > >>>>> Should not it just be the support
> to
> > allow a UI system to put
> > >> installed.
> > >>>>> when I mean UI I am talking about
> any
> > interaction to the user.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> =========================
> > >>>>> BJ Freeman
> > >>>>> Strategic Power Office with
> Supplier
> > Automation
> > >>>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
> > >>>>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
> > >>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to
> Assist
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following
> on
> > 12/15/2010 9:52 AM:
> > >>>>>> I'm working on a project
> that
> > requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm
> > >>>>>> trying to get a
> framework-only
> > installation to run.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> There are a lot of
> dependencies on
> > the party and content components.
> > >>>>>> Removing dependencies on the
> party
> > component should be fairly easy.
> > >> The
> > >>>>>> online help system uses the
> > content component, so that is an issue.
> > >>>>>> Should we move the content
> > component to the framework?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> -Adrian
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Framework Independence
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@yahoo.com>.
I will be working on that today.
-Adrian
--- On Sat, 12/18/10, Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
> IMO the best way to go at this point
> is to move the ui for the administration of user logins and
> permissions from the party to the webtools web application.
> In this way, in a framework only setup, we will have some
> screens to create new user accounts and administer them. I
> don't think that we have to provide screens addressed to
> users (not administrators) to manage their user preferences:
> the nature of this ui would be too much dependent on the
> nature of the custom applications that will be used with the
> framework.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>
> > By clicking on the party's name in the header the user
> is directed to this
> > screen:
> > https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin
> >
> > Here there are lots of links and information related
> to all kind of things:
> > orders, invoices, visits etc.
> > In a framework-only installation this screen should
> only allow the user to
> > access to its personal information, password,
> preferences etc.
> > How could we get this?
> > Could we replace this screen with a (non
> user-editable) PortalPage where
> > every installed application could add their
> screenlets?
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Bruno
> >
> > 2010/12/16 David E Jones <de...@me.com>
> >
> >>
> >> Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the
> framework more (or
> >> totally) independent from the applications and
> specialpurpose components.
> >> The only question is the best way to do that, and
> it looks like as far as a
> >> general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts
> from application
> >> components to framework components) a fair
> consensus is being reached
> >> quickly.
> >>
> >> Of course, this is helped by lots of previous
> discussion on this topic.
> >>
> >> -David
> >>
> >>
> >> On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
> >>
> >>> I don't think you will find a consensus so
> just need to branch your own
> >> frame work as I did.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> =========================
> >>> BJ Freeman
> >>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier
> Automation <
> >> http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
> >>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
> >>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
> >>>
> >>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010
> 10:40 AM:
> >>>> To clarify, I'm trying to get the
> components in the framework folder to
> >>>> run by themselves - without the components
> found in the applications
> >>>> folder. Some of the framework components
> have UIs.
> >>>>
> >>>> I understand everyone has a different
> opinion on what constitutes a
> >>>> framework, so I don't want to rehash that
> discussion. I just want to
> >>>> disable the components in the applications
> folder and still have OFBiz
> >> run.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Adrian
> >>>>
> >>>> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
> >>>>> first question is should there be any
> UI activity at the framework
> >> level.
> >>>>> Should not it just be the support to
> allow a UI system to put
> >> installed.
> >>>>> when I mean UI I am talking about any
> interaction to the user.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> =========================
> >>>>> BJ Freeman
> >>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier
> Automation
> >>>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
> >>>>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
> >>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on
> 12/15/2010 9:52 AM:
> >>>>>> I'm working on a project that
> requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm
> >>>>>> trying to get a framework-only
> installation to run.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There are a lot of dependencies on
> the party and content components.
> >>>>>> Removing dependencies on the party
> component should be fairly easy.
> >> The
> >>>>>> online help system uses the
> content component, so that is an issue.
> >>>>>> Should we move the content
> component to the framework?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Adrian
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: Framework Independence
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
IMO the best way to go at this point is to move the ui for the administration of user logins and permissions from the party to the webtools web application.
In this way, in a framework only setup, we will have some screens to create new user accounts and administer them. I don't think that we have to provide screens addressed to users (not administrators) to manage their user preferences: the nature of this ui would be too much dependent on the nature of the custom applications that will be used with the framework.
Kind regards,
Jacopo
On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Bruno Busco wrote:
> By clicking on the party's name in the header the user is directed to this
> screen:
> https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin
>
> Here there are lots of links and information related to all kind of things:
> orders, invoices, visits etc.
> In a framework-only installation this screen should only allow the user to
> access to its personal information, password, preferences etc.
> How could we get this?
> Could we replace this screen with a (non user-editable) PortalPage where
> every installed application could add their screenlets?
>
> Thank you,
> Bruno
>
> 2010/12/16 David E Jones <de...@me.com>
>
>>
>> Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the framework more (or
>> totally) independent from the applications and specialpurpose components.
>> The only question is the best way to do that, and it looks like as far as a
>> general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts from application
>> components to framework components) a fair consensus is being reached
>> quickly.
>>
>> Of course, this is helped by lots of previous discussion on this topic.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think you will find a consensus so just need to branch your own
>> frame work as I did.
>>>
>>>
>>> =========================
>>> BJ Freeman
>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <
>> http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>
>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>>
>>>
>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 10:40 AM:
>>>> To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to
>>>> run by themselves - without the components found in the applications
>>>> folder. Some of the framework components have UIs.
>>>>
>>>> I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a
>>>> framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to
>>>> disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz
>> run.
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>> first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework
>> level.
>>>>> Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put
>> installed.
>>>>> when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user.
>>>>>
>>>>> =========================
>>>>> BJ Freeman
>>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
>>>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>>>>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>>>
>>>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM:
>>>>>> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm
>>>>>> trying to get a framework-only installation to run.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components.
>>>>>> Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy.
>> The
>>>>>> online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue.
>>>>>> Should we move the content component to the framework?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Re: Framework Independence
Posted by Bruno Busco <br...@gmail.com>.
By clicking on the party's name in the header the user is directed to this
screen:
https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=admin
Here there are lots of links and information related to all kind of things:
orders, invoices, visits etc.
In a framework-only installation this screen should only allow the user to
access to its personal information, password, preferences etc.
How could we get this?
Could we replace this screen with a (non user-editable) PortalPage where
every installed application could add their screenlets?
Thank you,
Bruno
2010/12/16 David E Jones <de...@me.com>
>
> Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the framework more (or
> totally) independent from the applications and specialpurpose components.
> The only question is the best way to do that, and it looks like as far as a
> general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts from application
> components to framework components) a fair consensus is being reached
> quickly.
>
> Of course, this is helped by lots of previous discussion on this topic.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>
> > I don't think you will find a consensus so just need to branch your own
> frame work as I did.
> >
> >
> > =========================
> > BJ Freeman
> > Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <
> http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
> > Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
> > Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
> >
> > Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
> >
> >
> > Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 10:40 AM:
> >> To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to
> >> run by themselves - without the components found in the applications
> >> folder. Some of the framework components have UIs.
> >>
> >> I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a
> >> framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to
> >> disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz
> run.
> >>
> >> -Adrian
> >>
> >> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
> >>> first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework
> level.
> >>> Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put
> installed.
> >>> when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user.
> >>>
> >>> =========================
> >>> BJ Freeman
> >>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
> >>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
> >>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
> >>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
> >>>
> >>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM:
> >>>> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm
> >>>> trying to get a framework-only installation to run.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components.
> >>>> Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy.
> The
> >>>> online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue.
> >>>> Should we move the content component to the framework?
> >>>>
> >>>> -Adrian
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: Framework Independence
Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
Not really BJ, there is a consensus on making the framework more (or totally) independent from the applications and specialpurpose components. The only question is the best way to do that, and it looks like as far as a general approach goes (moving minimal needed parts from application components to framework components) a fair consensus is being reached quickly.
Of course, this is helped by lots of previous discussion on this topic.
-David
On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:47 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
> I don't think you will find a consensus so just need to branch your own frame work as I did.
>
>
> =========================
> BJ Freeman
> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>
> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>
>
> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 10:40 AM:
>> To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to
>> run by themselves - without the components found in the applications
>> folder. Some of the framework components have UIs.
>>
>> I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a
>> framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to
>> disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>> first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level.
>>> Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed.
>>> when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user.
>>>
>>> =========================
>>> BJ Freeman
>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
>>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>
>>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>>
>>>
>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM:
>>>> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm
>>>> trying to get a framework-only installation to run.
>>>>
>>>> There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components.
>>>> Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The
>>>> online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue.
>>>> Should we move the content component to the framework?
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Framework Independence
Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
I don't think you will find a consensus so just need to branch your own
frame work as I did.
=========================
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 10:40 AM:
> To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to
> run by themselves - without the components found in the applications
> folder. Some of the framework components have UIs.
>
> I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a
> framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to
> disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run.
>
> -Adrian
>
> On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>> first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level.
>> Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed.
>> when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user.
>>
>> =========================
>> BJ Freeman
>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>
>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>
>>
>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM:
>>> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm
>>> trying to get a framework-only installation to run.
>>>
>>> There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components.
>>> Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The
>>> online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue.
>>> Should we move the content component to the framework?
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Framework Independence
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>.
To clarify, I'm trying to get the components in the framework folder to
run by themselves - without the components found in the applications
folder. Some of the framework components have UIs.
I understand everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a
framework, so I don't want to rehash that discussion. I just want to
disable the components in the applications folder and still have OFBiz run.
-Adrian
On 12/15/2010 10:13 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
> first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level.
> Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed.
> when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user.
>
> =========================
> BJ Freeman
> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>
> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>
>
> Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM:
>> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm
>> trying to get a framework-only installation to run.
>>
>> There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components.
>> Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The
>> online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue.
>> Should we move the content component to the framework?
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>
>
Re: Framework Independence
Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
first question is should there be any UI activity at the framework level.
Should not it just be the support to allow a UI system to put installed.
when I mean UI I am talking about any interaction to the user.
=========================
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
Adrian Crum sent the following on 12/15/2010 9:52 AM:
> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm
> trying to get a framework-only installation to run.
>
> There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components.
> Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The
> online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue.
> Should we move the content component to the framework?
>
> -Adrian
>
Re: Framework Independence
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On Dec 15, 2010, at 6:52 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> I'm working on a project that requires only the OFBiz framework. I'm trying to get a framework-only installation to run.
>
> There are a lot of dependencies on the party and content components. Removing dependencies on the party component should be fairly easy. The online help system uses the content component, so that is an issue. Should we move the content component to the framework?
IMO a part of the content component could live in the framework.
Jacopo
>
> -Adrian