Pierre all that is obvious to me, I expected a more argumented answer :)
Maybe I did not well phrase my sentence, here is a new try: I still don't see
what prevent componentId and componentName to be same
Thanks
Jacques
Le 26/07/2016 à 10:10, Pierre Smits a écrit :
For starters:
- A componentId needs to be unique
- A componentName need not be
as an example:
-PcomponentId=1 -PcomponentName=webshop
-PcomponentId=2 -PcomponentName="webshop
The componentName parameters is more for humans than for a software system.
It provides convenience. And has less restrictions regarding format, eg:
- -PcomponentName="This is a a large DESCRIPTIVE piece of T3xt" - is
allowable.
Best regards,
Pierre Smits
ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
OFBiz based solutions & services
OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
Le 26/07/2016 à 09:10, Pierre Smits a écrit :
The basePermission parameters leads to a few things:
* being used in ofbiz-component.xml of the new component
* being used in the *SecurityPermissionSeedData.xml of the new component
* being used in the *SecurityGroupDemoData.xml of the new component
A specific security group is not set in the ofbiz-component.xml, where
OFBTOOLS is also defined.
For what it is worth, we (in our environment) differentiate between
componentID and componentName and have enhanced the ANT task also in such
a
way that we can make new components tenant specific and/or component type
specific.
What is the reason to differentiate componentID and componentName?
Jacques
