If my understanding is correct from Scott's suggestion, then this entails substantial work as we need to:
- Identify "everything else" which is not a system configuration property. Maybe some examples - Find, and fix code related to properties which should not exist in both db and files (remove fallback mechanism). Again, some examples would be good. - Figure out the implications from code design. - Also, I'm assuming this has nothing to do with JVM system properties correct? For example, take a look at StartupControlPanel.loadGlobalOfbizSystemProperties(...). So, to me the change in this proposal is still not crystal clear. AND reading this thread I see objections on the idea from both myself and Michael. So a clear strategy for what to do exactly and where would help. A big idea without a clear implementation strategy might lead to confusion. On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > Thanks Scott, > > This is indeed essentially it. > > I'll get into details in a new thread. Notably about how to load data. > > Jacques > > > Le 05/04/2018 à 10:39, Scott Gray a écrit : >> >> My understanding is that Jacques is essentially proposing that: >> - Properties should either exist in the db or in files but not both >> - System configuration properties should go in files (I assume everything >> that isn't applicable to multi-tenanting) >> - Everything else should go to the db >> >> If properties are only expected to exist in one of the two places, then >> the >> fallback behavior discussion becomes obsolete. >> >> Hope that helps. Jacques, sorry if I've misunderstood anything, please >> feel free to clarify. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> On 5 April 2018 at 07:26, Taher Alkhateeb <slidingfilame...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> There is no need to copy paste! I already read the jira and expressed my >>> confusion which is still the case. Your text is long and talks about many >>> things and does not provide a concrete proposal or a patch. >>> >>> What do you want to do? Rename system properties? Move properties? What >>> are >>> they? Create tenant readers? Do further analysis? What is the proposal? >>> And >>> why is the design discussion in a JIRA and not here? >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018, 9:34 AM Jacques Le Roux >>> <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com >>> wrote: >>> >>>> OK, here is a copy of my comment in OFBIZ-7112 >>>> >>>> It's a long time now we have the SystemProperty entity. It was a good >>>> idea, that we spoke about <https://markmail.org/message/gdcefnghjtezyn4b >>>> >>>> even >>>> <https://markmail.org/message/gdcefnghjtezyn4b> longer ago < >>>> https://markmail.org/message/gdcefnghjtezyn4b> before it was implemented >>>> <http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1238998>. I believe >>>> it's a good idea but there are 2 flaws in the current implementation. >>>> >>>> When we discussed about it before the implementation, it was clear that >>>> only business (ie not system) properties should be concerned >>>> <http://example.com/>. To be clear, for me the system properties are the >>>> properties in files at >>>> framework/start/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/base/start and some other >>>> files like freemarkerTransforms.properties, fop.properties, >>>> catalina.properties, debug.properties, owasp.properties, >>>> security.properties, requestHandler.properties, url.properties and maybe >>>> some others I missed >>>> >>>> 1. So the 1st flaw was to name this entity SystemProperty. It should >>> >>> have >>>> >>>> been named BusinessProperty. We could consider rename it, but that's >>> >>> minor >>>> >>>> in comparison with the second flaw >>>> 2. The second flaw is that we kept the business properties files. To >>>> avoid duplication and confusion all the business properties should be in >>> >>> the >>>> >>>> database and a specific UI should be created to easier handled >>>> them. >>>> >>>> We should also remember that when the idea was 1st expressed and >>> >>> discussed >>>> >>>> there were no tenants in OFBiz (introduced in 2010). With now tenants, >>>> having business properties in data base is necessary and (almost?) all >>>> business properties should be shareable by tenants (to be checked). >>>> >>>> That's why I suggested to Deprecate properties in favour of >>>> SystemProperties <https://markmail.org/message/md6fuoouan377c6w>. I also >>>> suggested to have >>>> specific multitenant and multitenant-initial readers < >>>> https://markmail.org/message/opldepaevls3y3ob> for business properties >>> >>> to >>>> >>>> separate those from >>>> other data. One thing I did not check yet is if the data I then called >>>> "only for tenants" are the business properties; and those which are not >>> >>> are >>>> >>>> system properties. A deeper analysis is required but the idea seems to >>> >>> fit. >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> TL;DR: We will not resolve the SystemProperties issues w/o no longer >>> >>> using >>>> >>>> properties files but for the system properties. Of course then renaming >>> >>> the >>>> >>>> SystemProperty entity to BusinessProperty is necessary. Having a >>>> specific >>>> UI for DB access for these properties is also necessary. I foresee the >>>> webtools as the best place for this UI. It should be accessible by >>> >>> tenants. >>>> >>>> And to finish the reason why I want to keep Wai's work, is sometimes you >>>> need to annul a property. In this case the best way to do it in DB is >>>> how >>>> Wai >>>> implemented it, so it should not be removed. Rather the duplicated >>>> properties in files should be removed and replaced by properties in DB >>> >>> only. >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 05/04/2018 à 07:42, Scott Gray a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> If there's an ongoing discussion on the dev list then I don't think >>> >>> it's >>>> >>>> a >>>>> >>>>> good idea to try to move it to jira until there's some consensus on the >>>>> path forward. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>> On 4 April 2018 at 10:14, Taher Alkhateeb <slidingfilame...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I am a little lost in this JIRA and cannot follow the discussion. Can >>>>>> you please point to what you want to review with others exactly? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Jacques Le Roux >>>>>> <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 03/04/2018 à 09:16, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I suggest to continue the discussion at >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7112 where I have >>>>>> >>>>>> completed my >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> proposition >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since there were some more comments after is al link to my comment >>> >>> with >>>>>> >>>>>> my >>>>>>> >>>>>>> completed my proposition https://s.apache.org/7uwl >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>> >>>> >
