Hi Taher, Yes, I was talking about splitting those and implement as it’s own method rather than using the common approach for both.
-- Thanks & Regards, Mridul Pathak http://www.hotwaxsystems.com > On Aug 12, 2016, at 7:49 PM, Taher Alkhateeb <slidingfilame...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Mridul, > > I'm assuming you want to split the methods, not copy-paste into a new file > right? If yes then yeah I think It's a good idea. > > Taher Alkhateeb > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Mridul Pathak > <mridul.pat...@hotwaxsystems.com <mailto:mridul.pat...@hotwaxsystems.com>> > wrote: > The other area that I believe needs be fixed is the use of UtilProperties for > both configurations and UI Labels. UI Labels used to be in properties files > way back and at that time when migrating to XML format it made sense to keep > using the same methods for properties and UI Labels to minimize the effort. I > think handling of configurations versus UI Labels can be redesigned to be > distinct functionalities. > > -- > Thanks & Regards, > Mridul Pathak > Senior Manager > HotWax Systems > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> > > > On Aug 8, 2016, at 10:56 PM, Taher Alkhateeb <slidingfilame...@gmail.com > > <mailto:slidingfilame...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > However as far as configuration files are concerned, I find the whole > > approach currently used in OFBiz a bit confusing and problematic. There are > > too many files scattered in too many places. Some of them are XML and some > > are .properties. we should really have one or a few files preferrably in > > one directory for all configurations related to framework and core > > applications. Or maybe just one master configuration file for framework and > > another one for applications and that's it. Also many configurations should > > be code and vice versa. All of this makes tweking OFBiz confusing and > > difficult. > > > > So my real preference is to shake things up, redesign and centralize > > configurations for OFBiz. For example if you think of apache httpd, then > > it's really one or two major files isn't it? It should be similar with us I > > think. > >
