Hi Jacques, Let me put it another way. I don't think this patch is good as it doesn't reuse the screen definition. Before any improvement can be made to use the screen definition, OFBiz should understand why a layer of POJOs should exist between the screen definition and renderers.
Why this component? My client handles numerous orders each day. Each order have hundreds of items. Their existing desktop based ERP system supports the order clerks with that requirement efficiently. Now they want to move to web-based. Many OFBiz's forms are based on the tables instead of business objects. This mean the user have to click here and there in order to edit the forms. More clicking means less efficiency. This component was quickly put up so that I can rework the code to support forms based on business object. That means having the request header, request items etc on the same screen. Regards, James Jacques Le Roux wrote: > > James, > > It's quite clear, and IMO you did an excellent and interesting work. > Unfortunately, I don't know if we will find enough interest in > the community to commit your patch. Mostly because it's a bit redundant > and not exactly in the spirit of OFBiz (less compilations > and reboots). > > BTW why was the reason you created this component (apart that maybe you > are a huge fan of wicket ;o), did you miss something in > OFBiz? > > Thanks > > Jacques > > From: "james_sg" <[email protected]> >> Hi Jacques, >> >> Ok, I agree one con about it, is maintenance. >> >> The reason is because the screen renderer in OFBiz is tightly coupled >> with >> the screen definition. >> Since this implementation is a quick hack, I go with the easier way of >> coding the screen content in java instead of using the screen definition >> way. >> >> It will be good if OFbiz add a layer of POJOs between screen widgets and >> the >> renderer. >> >> Hope I am clear. >> >> Regards, >> james >> >> >> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>> >>> Hi devs, >>> >>> James yong submitted a patch (simple enough to be quickly read) >>> proposing >>> to introduce Wicket as an OFBiz framework component. I's >>> be interested to read your comments about pros and cons >>> Note the urlrewrite stuff... >>> >>> One cons I see is maintenance... (We will see if James is still around, >>> he >>> created the Jira issue in August) >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Wicket-in-OFBiz-tp3233945p3234277.html >> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > > > > -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Wicket-in-OFBiz-tp3233945p3234461.html Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
