-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I think if you read davids comments included, that is the reason. Framework you can have dependencies on, Application you can not have framework depend on applications.
Bruno Busco sent the following on 1/4/2009 1:48 PM: > Hi Jacopo, > I have moved the "bi" folder from the framework to "application" (not > specialpurpose) and changed build.xml and component-load.xml. > It seems to me that it works well there. > > Are there any specific reasons for having it in the framework folder > and not moving to "application" folder? > > Thank you, > -Bruno > > 2009/1/4 Jacopo Cappellato <jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com>: >> Hi Bruno, >> >> these service calls are part of the quickInitDataWarehouse method that is >> just a util method to simplify the BI setup for demo purposes: I know this >> is not ideal and I agree that the method should be moved outside of the >> framework. >> But maybe for now we could leave it as is and just add a comment to it... it >> is really useful in demos and testing. >> >> Jacopo >> >> >> On Dec 26, 2008, at 8:53 AM, Bruno Busco wrote: >> >>> That's fine, >>> we should then understand how to resolve some dependencies i.e. >>> service calls like: >>> <call-service service-name="loadAllProductsInProductDimension" >>> in-map-name="inMap"/> >>> or >>> <call-service service-name="loadSalesInvoiceFact" >>> in-map-name="inMap"/> >>> that are defined in catalog and accounting components that (I guess) >>> will not part of the framework. >>> >>> -Bruno >>> >>> 2008/12/26 David E. Jones <david.jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>: >>>> I think you misunderstand. The main bi stuff is just a tool, and really >>>> belongs in the framework. Built on top of those tools are OOTB star >>>> schema data models that can be used along with the OOTB operational data >>>> model. Those belong with the base applications, along with reports that >>>> are more generic in nature. Either way, most of the bi stuff is core to >>>> OFBiz, and an important part of it (especially the star-schema and data >>>> warehouse related parts), and is certainly not a peripheral add-on as >>>> being in specialpurpose would imply. >>>> >>>> -David >>>> >>>> >>>> Bruno Busco wrote: >>>>> But maybe is better to move files using SVN in order to maintain >>>>> history... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2008/12/25 Bruno Busco <bruno.bu...@gmail.com>: >>>>>> If needed I can send a patch for this right now. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2008/12/25 Bruno Busco <bruno.bu...@gmail.com>: >>>>>>> David, >>>>>>> I was trying to move the BI folder from framework to specialpurpose >>>>>>> and, once changed the build.xml and component-load.xml files, >>>>>>> it seems to build and work well. >>>>>>> Could we move it in order to simplify the framework-only deploy? >>>>>>> -Bruno >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2008/12/25 David E. Jones <david.jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>: >>>>>>>> The placement of BI in the diagram is based on the original >>>>>>>> implementation, which was not part of the framework as it is now. BI >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> kind of a funny one and while there are tools for BI in the >>>>>>>> framework, >>>>>>>> and base data structures within the base applications, it can really >>>>>>>> exist in applications, specialpurpose, or hot-deploy/add-on >>>>>>>> components. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -David >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bruno Busco wrote: >>>>>>>>> Thank you David, >>>>>>>>> I did not see this page before and it helps very much. >>>>>>>>> I will take this as a Christmas present from you. ;-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> BTW, so this confirms that party should be out of the framework and >>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>> should remove all dependences on it from the framework (not adding >>>>>>>>> more). >>>>>>>>> Then I see that the BI also is out of the framework (and this is ok) >>>>>>>>> but in my framework-only installation that I got deleting the >>>>>>>>> applications and specialourpose folders from a full trunk checkout >>>>>>>>> BI >>>>>>>>> is there but of couurse not working. >>>>>>>>> Could we think of moving BI files from framework to specialpurpose >>>>>>>>> folder? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Bruno >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 David E Jones <david.jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The decision has already been made, and even documented (a miracle, >>>>>>>>>> yes I >>>>>>>>>> know). For details see: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now we just need to stick to it... so thanks for bringing this up >>>>>>>>>> Bruno. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -David >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Dec 25, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Bruno Busco wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>> this change sets an additional dependence of the framework from >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> Party application. >>>>>>>>>>> We should definitively take a decition on how to separate the >>>>>>>>>>> framework. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -Bruno >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2008/12/25 <hans...@apache.org>: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Author: hansbak >>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed Dec 24 22:26:14 2008 >>>>>>>>>>>> New Revision: 729396 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=729396&view=rev >>>>>>>>>>>> Log: >>>>>>>>>>>> OFBIZ-2097: show organizationPartyId in header(can be set in >>>>>>>>>>>> preferences), rewrote financial history to show currencies, >>>>>>>>>>>> invoice/p[aymentworker now can show in actual and >>>>>>>>>>>> organizationparty currency >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Added: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-INF/actions/party/UnAppliedInvoicesForParty.groovy >>>>>>>>>>>> (with props) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-INF/actions/party/UnAppliedPaymentsForParty.groovy >>>>>>>>>>>> (with props) >>>>>>>>>>>> Modified: >>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/config/AccountingUiLabels.xml >>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/entitydef/entitymodel.xml >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/invoice/InvoiceWorker.java >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/payment/PaymentWorker.java >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/WEB-INF/actions/invoice/EditInvoice.groovy >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/invoice/InvoiceForms.xml >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/payment/PaymentForms.xml >>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/widget/InvoiceScreens.xml >>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/widget/Menus.xml >>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/WEB-INF/actions/party/PartyFinancialHistory.groovy >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/webapp/partymgr/party/PartyForms.xml >>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/widget/partymgr/PartyScreens.xml >>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/widget/partymgr/ProfileScreens.xml >>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/config/CommonUiLabels.xml >>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/webcommon/includes/header.ftl >>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/widget/CommonScreens.xml >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJYV4OrP3NbaWWqE4RApKFAKCHbPfHV8qwnPhdUvVdO6OiGhuejACbBaQS m2jKte9yyaZuQ3HEhoOpxwU= =bFu4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
