Thanks Jacques!
-- Rishi Solanki Sr. Manager, Enterprise Software Development HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd. Direct: +91-9893287847 http://www.hotwaxsystems.com On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > Thanks for your ideas Rishi, > > Fixed with OFBIZ-9230 > > I had a look at checkRhsType() but that's another beast. Because AFAIK the > delegator only misses when checkRhsType is called indirectly from the > JobPoller. > > It begins to miss in this line in selectCountByCondition() > > makeConditionWhereString(sqlBuffer, " WHERE ", modelEntity, > whereEntityCondition, viewWhereConditions, whereEntityConditionParams); > > I have created OFBIZ-9249, it's minor but not trivial! > > Jacques > > > > Le 04/03/2017 à 15:07, Rishi Solanki a écrit : > >> I dig into the issue and proposed one solution in the same Jira ticket >> OFBIZ-9230. Please see if it looks fine or may be we can proceed in that >> direction. >> >> Quick Reference from ticket: "In the template/FTL context or in the screen >> context whenever we get the delegator as null we can use this >> delegatorName >> first from session and if it is empty then we could try to use default >> delegator." >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> Rishi Solanki >> Sr. Manager, Enterprise Software Development >> HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd. >> Direct: +91-9893287847 >> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com >> >> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Taher Alkhateeb < >> slidingfilame...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> All good points Michael. Replacing is neither short term nor easy as many >>> places in the code base depend on this feature, not to mention the need >>> for >>> community approval too. I just mentioned this as an alternative solution >>> from a technical standpoint. >>> >>> So our best bet is to fix the issue mentioned by Jacques. >>> >>> On Mar 3, 2017 9:16 PM, "Michael Brohl" <michael.br...@ecomify.de> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Taher, >>>> >>>> I don't think that this is a valid short-term approach. >>>> >>>> As far as I know, there are users and also service providers relying on >>>> the multi-tenant feature and we should have a mid- to long-term roadmap >>>> >>> for >>> >>>> a migration to other solutions. >>>> >>>> It would be really helpful to have some opinions by users of the >>>> multi-tenancy feature. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> >>>> Am 03.03.17 um 13:22 schrieb Taher Alkhateeb: >>>> >>>> In my opinion, the multi-tenancy feature can be reasonably replaced with >>>>> non-java databases like mysql and postgres combined with docker. Both >>>>> instances share the same code base but with two different runtime >>>>> >>>> volumes >>> >>>> and two databases. This would actually reduce the complexity of the code >>>>> base, especially the entity engine. >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 3, 2017 10:39 AM, "Jacques Le Roux" < >>>>> >>>> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> >>> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>>> After my analysis at https://s.apache.org/hvR9 if we don't fix the >>>>>> issues >>>>>> reported there I wonder if we don't need to remove the multitenant >>>>>> feature, >>>>>> better not to propose a broken solution! >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacques >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >
