Re: Framework Independence

[Adrian Crum]

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<adri...@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<jacopo.cappell...@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<d...@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