Re: [VOTE] to use Lombok inside OFBiz
-1 I don't think Lombok is right for the OFBiz framework. Looks like Lombok is good for object oriented programming and in OFBiz we generally stay away from POJO or other similar object oriented programming practices. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel COO HotWax Systems http://www.hotwaxsystems.com Cell: + 1 509 398 3120 On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:45 PM Michael Brohl wrote: > -1 > > Thanks, > > Michael > > > Am 08.09.20 um 09:36 schrieb Jacques Le Roux: > > Hi, > > > > Following our discussions about using Lombok inside OFBiz, as it's not > > clear if we should, here is a vote to decide about that. > > > > The question is: "should we use Lombok inside OFBiz?" > > > > Please cast your vote: > > > > [+1]to use Lombok inside OFBiz > > [0] to abstain > > [-1]to not use Lombok inside OFBiz > > > > This vote will be open for a week. > > > > Thanks > > > > Jacques > > > >
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 17.12.03
+1 Thanks and Regards Anil Patel COO HotWax Systems http://www.hotwaxsystems.com Cell: + 1 509 398 3120 On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 5:04 AM Jacopo Cappellato < jacopo.cappell...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is the vote thread to release a new bug fix release for the > release17.12 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 17.12.03" will > supersede the previous release from the same branch. > > The release files can be downloaded from here: > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ > and are: > * apache-ofbiz-17.12.03.zip > * KEYS: text file with keys > * apache-ofbiz-17.12.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file > * apache-ofbiz-17.12.03.zip.sha512: checksum file > > Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions > on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html > ). > > Vote: > [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 17.12.03 > [ -1] do not release > > This vote will be open for 5 days. > > For more details about this process please refer to > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > Best Regards, > > Jacopo >
Re: OFBiz Increased Activity
May the Source be with you :) https://www.google.com/search?q=may+the+source+be+with+you=2=1440=829=isch=v6oz4GHd2G00-M%253A%253B-0S5xbyMzuIx7M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.raidz3ro.com%25252Fmay-the-source-be-with-you-programmer-t-shirt.html=iu=m=v6oz4GHd2G00-M%253A%252C-0S5xbyMzuIx7M%252C_=__FhUj_S2rj1sugOiQVHiTURSJI_A%3D=0ahUKEwjhq_7js9PNAhUMGB4KHR75CYMQyjcIKw=zvp2V-GMF4yweJ7yp5gI#imgrc=v6oz4GHd2G00-M%3A <https://www.google.com/search?q=may+the+source+be+with+you=2=1440=829=isch=v6oz4GHd2G00-M%3A%3B-0S5xbyMzuIx7M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.raidz3ro.com%252Fmay-the-source-be-with-you-programmer-t-shirt.html=iu=m=v6oz4GHd2G00-M%3A%2C-0S5xbyMzuIx7M%2C_=__FhUj_S2rj1sugOiQVHiTURSJI_A==0ahUKEwjhq_7js9PNAhUMGB4KHR75CYMQyjcIKw=zvp2V-GMF4yweJ7yp5gI#imgrc=v6oz4GHd2G00-M:> Thanks and Regards Anil Patel COO Hotwax Systems http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/ <http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/> Cell: +1 509 398 3120 > On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Michael Brohl <michael.br...@ecomify.de> wrote: > > Hi Sharan, all, > > impressing momentum in the last weeks, it's well recognized also by users and > I think this will move our project and the community forward. > > Thanks to all participants, you are great! > > Regards, > > Michael Brohl > ecomify GmbH > www.ecomify.de > > > Am 28.06.16 um 11:14 schrieb Sharan Foga: >> Hi Everyone >> >> A quick note to say thank you to everyone that is working on helping us >> improve OFBiz. Over the last few weeks OFBiz is consistently in the top 5 >> most active SVN projects. (At the moment of writing this we are number 1 >> with 23 commits so far today). >> >> Our dev mailing list is also consistently in the top 5 most active mailing >> lists – so shows that we are busy discussing things too. I've included the >> link the status monitor below. >> >> https://status.apache.org/ >> >> It's not only about the number of commits, but also the interactions and >> discussions we are all having. I really like the community vibe and >> enthusiasm we have at the moment. Thanks everyone for contributing to it and >> continuing to making it happen! >> >> Thanks >> Sharan > >
Check emails
Thanks and Regards Anil Patel COO Hotwax Systems http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/ <http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/> Cell: +1 509 398 3120
Re: We miss a QA team, we face too much regressions
Jacques and others, Thanks for your kind support to team of developers working so many tickets at the same time. Some of the active engineers from HW are also skilled at QA practices and tools to automate testing and they will be super happy to start contributing selenium tests. Before we can start writing selenium tests it will be good to have community agree on expected system behavior and document them. We do have good start on it, https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Business+Process+Stories+and+Use+Cases+Library <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Business+Process+Stories+and+Use+Cases+Library> Is the fact that the use cases are posted on OFBiz confluence, enough to say that these are the expected system behavior OR Do we need to take time to review them and declare them accepted (we may use Jira ticket to track the review activity and then close the ticket when we have the agreement)? The developer team at HW is excited to do whatever it takes to increase OFBiz adoption and they will be happy to develop selenium tests. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel COO Hotwax Systems http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/ <http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/> Cell: +1 509 398 3120 > On Jun 18, 2016, at 12:10 AM, Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> > wrote: > > > Le 17/06/2016 à 14:03, Ron Wheeler a écrit : >> On 17/06/2016 5:19 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>> Le 16/06/2016 à 22:53, Ron Wheeler a écrit : >>>> One of the side benefits of having a small number of committer's is that >>>> you prevent bad designs and poorly tested code getting into the trunk. >>>> The disadvantage is that the committers are easily overwhelmed by an >>>> active contributor community. >>> >>> Would you say that with 31 committers (most active) we are currently a >>> small number of committers? >> >> Are the committers able to verify the code committed? > > I believe so > >> How many of the regressions should have been detected before the code was >> committed? > > I have no ideas > >> >> How many of the regressions were caused by lack of documentation of existing >> features so that people broke things that were "hidden" relationships? > > One part of the project which cruelly lacks documentation is the UI of the > content component. But the problems appeared mostly which changes related > with FOP and Birt because upgrading/refactoring/improving code is not always > a task as easy as it may look > >> >> It is hard to build and maintain a bullet-proof integration test suite so >> human engineering is still a big part of the solution. > > Right, I'm still convinced some high level Selenium tests would help > >> >>> >>>> You may want to put in some rules about unit tests so that code without >>>> adequate test coverage can not be updated until the unit tests are >>>> sufficient for the committer to feel confident about accepting it. This >>>> may cause people to work on tests for stuff that they did not write but >>>> are considered key functionality in the modules being updated. >>>> There is no free ride and if you allow people to build up the technical >>>> debt of the project in order to meet their own deadlines, you will >>>> eventually have to face a large debt that comes due. >>>> >>>> Taher is paying off the debt in the framework which is a great >>>> contribution. >>>> It may be that others are going to have to take up the challenge in the >>>> application side. >>>> You may have to have a short moratorium on enhancements until the debt is >>>> reduced to a manageable level. >>>> >>>> There may also be the issue of people modifying too many layers at once so >>>> changes affect a lot of different services so unpleasant side-effects are >>>> easier to generate. >>>> >>>> Are the regressions caused by a small group of contributors or from >>>> updates going through a few committers? >>> >>> As I said it's recently fortunately small things. For now it's hard to >>> answer to your question, because the HW effort is rip-roaring. I guess when >>> it will settle a lot of things will be better/fixed, in the meantime me >>> will certainly face some uncertainty. >>> My question was not about pointing finger put how to prevent issues. Hence >>> my question about Selenium because our current set of tests is obviously >>> not enough. >>> Your suggestion about more
Re: [DISCUSSION] Mentoring to Share Knowledge and Improve Code
Sharan, I like your idea of actively engaging with other committer in the community. I am willing to be part of this effort. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel COO Hotwax Systems http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/ <http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/> Cell: +1 509 398 3120 > On Jun 6, 2016, at 6:46 AM, Sharan-F <sharan.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi All > > One of the things that came up in the Committers Survey was related to > mentoring. I asked the question whether it would be a good idea if newer > Committers were mentored by a more experienced one and 63% of the > Committers surveyed agreed it would be. > > I think that this could be something that could be worth exploring as we > have Committers with a lot of experience and knowledge that could be good > mentors to others. Mentoring could be something as simple as being available > to answer questions or to give advice about how to approach something, but > the main thing is that there is someone to ask informally. > > For example, I'm sure that Jacques has probably lost count of the amount of > times I approached him offline for help with all kinds of things :-), and > every response has really helped. > > What do people think? (And more importantly is anyone willing to be a > mentor?) > > Thanks > Sharan > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Mentoring-to-Share-Knowledge-and-Improve-Code-tp4682594.html > Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Welcome to Deepak Dixit as new committer!
Deepak, Welcome aboard. Regards Anil Patel Thanks and Regards Anil Patel COO Hotwax Media Inc http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/ ApacheCon US 2014 Silver Sponsor http://na.apachecon.com/sponsor/our-sponsors On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxsystems.com wrote: The OFBiz PMC has invited Deepak Dixit to become a new committer and he has accepted the new role. Deepak, thank you for your continued commitment and valuable contributions. Welcome onboard! Jacopo
Re: Move The Asset Maintenance Component To A Separate Project
Yes, I do have interest in asset maintenance application and I like the idea and direction proposed by Adrian. With time I will figure out ways to support this experiment. Anil Patel. On Nov 29, 2014, at 4:37 AM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: Le 29/11/2014 06:26, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : On Nov 28, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: 1. Check with the ASF legal department before doing anything. You can do step #1 without any approval from the ASF or the OFBiz project. 2. Create a project on a popular hosting site (like SourceForge, but it could be anywhere). 3. Set up initial committers. 4. Notify the OFBiz mailing lists about the new project. 5. Drop the Asset Maintenance component from the ASF repo. Just to avoid confusion, let's keep step #5 out of this plan: the decision of dropping the original component or not will be taken by the OFBiz community based on several factors (its value, if it is maintained, etc... of course knowing that there is a maintained version of it with the same license will be a relevant factor in the decision). Thanks Jacopo, I wanted to say the same. Anil created this component so I guess he has still some interest in it. Jacques Jacopo
Re: JMeter examples
Hi, Our team has build set of JMeter tests for OOTB. They are ASL 2.0 licensed. You can find them on following URL, https://github.com/ofbizecosystem/evolvingofbiz-loadtest Ashish put together lots of documents as blog posts http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/author/ashish/ Feel free to use them as you find suitable. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel COO Hotwax Media Inc http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/ ApacheCon US 2014 Silver Sponsor http://na.apachecon.com/sponsor/our-sponsors On Oct 21, 2014, at 11:08 AM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: Hi, I know this might look a bit external, but I wonder if we could not provide some simple JMeter load tests OOTB? Jacques
Re: Welcome Nicolas Malin as new committer!
Nicolas, Welcome to the group. Looking forward to working with you. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel COO Hotwax Media Inc http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/ ApacheCon US 2014 Silver Sponsor http://na.apachecon.com/sponsor/our-sponsors On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:55 PM, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: The OFBiz PMC has invited Nicolas to become a new committer and he has accepted the new role: Nicolas is a skilled developer and he knows the OFBiz codebase quite well; but most of all Nicolas is committed to the project and has always showed a positive and collaborative attitude. Please welcome him onboard! Thank you Jacopo
Re: Bug Crush
Ron, You are making good point. On Sep 21, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Ron Wheeler rwhee...@artifact-software.com wrote: +1 If this is ever going to be a commercial success, there has to be enough transparency and reliability that people feel confident in committing to OFBiz. +1 If the policy is You can download the current release and commit your organization's most critical business functions to it but we are not going to fix the bugs that we find., it is going to be hard for someone to sell OFBiz to management regardless of how great the feature list might be. +1 What if, Users of certain release e.g 11.04 clearly communicate their willingness to help with maintaining the release. Help includes reporting bugs and keeping track of fixes that have not made into release of their interest. In absence of any managed effort to maintain ofbiz release, My recommendation is to use most recent release. Recently Hans posted nice article on this topic (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20140909060033-1227556-upgrade-your-erp-system-like-a-phone-app). Imaging how happy we would be if ORCLE announced that maintaining all these versions of Java was too much work and they were only going to fix bugs in Java 8. We would be looking for another Java PDQ. We all know how commercial products are maintained. In case of community based products, Users of software own the product and so they have right to maintain software. If there is any doubt as to the effect of this policy, perhaps some of the system integrators could ask their customers how this policy would fit their needs I agree with you. Customers don’t like to spend money on migrating their system to newer version of OFBiz unless their is real ROI involved. System Integrators can support their customers by participating in the community and supporting OFBiz release branch. Ron Regards Anil Patel On 20/09/2014 1:23 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: I understand your point of view and I even tend to agree with. For the moment I still personally try to backport on all maintained branches (those having releases pending). Most of the time it's straightforward, but I got bitten once or two by wrong backports which created new bugs that I had to fix. Still, though it's better now with Jira changes logs reports, the problem is not everybody is aware of bug fixes backported or not. The official download page http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html, says that we stabilize releases with bug fixes. It's not quite clear if we are backporting all or only some bug fixes. I wonder if we should not face the reality. Even during large efforts like HWM Bugs Crush, we don't/can't backport all bug fixes. I think we should make that clear and expose a way to users for them to more easily maintain the releases they use. I feel that with the help of the Jira changes logs reports (thanks Jacopo) this should be possible. I don't think at an automated way, just a process for users to follow. Jacques Le 20/09/2014 18:47, Adrian Crum a écrit : I don't have time to maintain 4 code bases (trunk + 3 branches). I will fix things in the trunk, and I will backport those fixes to the most recent branch. I have no interest in older branches. If someone else is using them, then they can create a patch for them. So, I have no issues with releasing old branches with missing fixes - because if anyone really cared about them they would work harder to maintain them. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 9/20/2014 5:29 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: It seems a bit weird to me to officially release code with bugs when we have already bug fixes in trunk Jacques Le 20/09/2014 17:17, Adrian Crum a écrit : From my perspective, anyone wanting to use older versions can backport the changes themselves - either locally, or in the release branches by providing a patch. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 9/20/2014 4:07 PM, Ashish Vijaywargiya wrote: Hello Jacques, Thanks for your kind words. We started this event considering the fact to provide fixes for trunk and latest release branch which is 13.07. It will be of great help if someone from community could pick and back port the required changes to Release Branch 12.04. In future if we get time we will also be taking care of back porting to R12.04. We didn't back port changes in R11.04 just because it is very old branch and very soon will not be maintained. Thanks. -- Kind Regards Ashish Vijaywargiya HotWax Media - est. 1997 ApacheCon US 2014 Silver Sponsor http://na.apachecon.com/sponsor/our-sponsors On Saturday 20 September 2014 05:01 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Le 20/09/2014 13:28, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : Hi, It's great to see a second Bug Crush effort! I have though a question, I see that you (HotWax Media team) only backport bug fixes to the R13 branch. I
Re: Please stop! was: Where is the error.log gone?
Interesting, message. I don’t know what you mean, IMO, OFBiz will be not be in bad shape if Jacques was not doing what he is doing for OFBiz. Regards Anil Patel On Sep 15, 2014, at 8:50 PM, Hans Bakker mailingl...@antwebsystems.com wrote: Gentlemen, seeing what Jacques is doing for OFBiz (what would ofbiz be without him?), is it such a problem, he can have his error log ? Because it was there and he thinks it is important, it is enough for me to let himhave it. Jacopo, please put it back and let everybody going back to the important subjects? Regards, Hans
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 11.04.06
+1 Regards Anil Patel On Aug 30, 2014, at 6:51 AM, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: This is the vote thread to release a new bug fix release for the release11.04 branch. This new release, Apache OFBiz 11.04.06 will supersede all the previous releases from the same branch. The release files can be downloaded from here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ and are: * apache-ofbiz-11.04.06.zip * KEYS: text file with keys * apache-ofbiz-11.04.06.zip.asc: the detached signature file * apache-ofbiz-11.04.06.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-11.04.06.zip.sha: hashes Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). Vote: [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 11.04.06 [ -1] do not release This vote will be open for at least 3 days. For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html Kind Regards, Jacopo
Re: Preparing for the 13.07.01 release
Back porting of Log4j2 is good idea. To understand performance gains, Has anybody in community performed load test on 13.07 release branch? If so, it will be nice to get some statistics. Regards Anil Patel On Aug 20, 2014, at 12:34 PM, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: Thanks to all of you for your valuable feedback. Based on all your comments I would like to: 1) do NOT switch 13.07 to Java 7: in fact 13.07 already works with both Java 6 and Java 7; but the switch would *require* Java 7 and this is probably not a good idea since the release branch is already one year old 2) do the upgrade to Log4j2: as mentioned by Adrian, this could cause some issues to sys admins but the benefit of running a faster and more reliable logging framework seems a valid 3) wait a few weeks before preparing for the 13.07.01 release (i.e. sometime in September) in order to give time to test and fine tune the Log4j2 configuration Regards, Jacopo On Aug 20, 2014, at 8:48 AM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: Le 19/08/2014 23:36, Christian Geisert a écrit : Am 19.08.2014 15:34, schrieb Jacopo Cappellato: Before I start the process of preparing the release files for the first release of the 13.07 series and call a vote on it I would like to get your feedback on a couple of topics. Should we backport to it the recent switch to Java 7? What does this mean exactly? Should it run with Java 7 (including passing all tests)? Yes, of course ... actually is does, I just checked. Should Java 7 be the minimum requirement to run it? I'm not sure on this one ... about which commit are you talking? If we copy all from trunk, there we forced to use Java 7 (in macros.xml) Should we backport to it the recent update to Log4j2? I haven't followed this changed closely but it sounds good and No more missing log entries due to logger overflows sounds actually like a bugfix to me ;-) +1 for this change Hè Christian, you are quite right! :) Jacques The main reason I am asking this is that once we release the first release out of 13.07, for sure we will not backport the aforementioned upgrades (because they are not bugs); however the 13.07 releases will stay with us for at least 2 years and it would be nice to do the migration to these new technologies now. Christian
Re: [jira] [Closed] (OFBIZ-4517) Shipment created for drop ship order is missing information
Adrian, I have spent time on the issue and findings are posted on issue. If you think my resolution is not right please reopen it or if you let me know which issue you think I should reopen I will do so. Regards Anil Patel On Aug 17, 2014, at 1:31 AM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: Anil, Please stop closing issues you are not interested in fixing. Others might want to work on them. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 8/16/2014 8:57 PM, Anil K Patel (JIRA) wrote: [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4517?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Anil K Patel closed OFBIZ-4517. --- Shipment created for drop ship order is missing information --- Key: OFBIZ-4517 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4517 Project: OFBiz Issue Type: Bug Components: order Affects Versions: Release Branch 11.04, Trunk Reporter: Kiran Gawde Assignee: Anil K Patel Attachments: OFBIZ-4517-OrderServicesJava.patch, OFBIZ-4517-ShoppingCartJava.patch Shipment created for drop ship order is missing: 1. Shipping origin address (ShipmentServices.xml#setShipmentSettingsFromPrimaryOrder line 532 Cannot find a shipping origin address for WS10123) 2. Shipping origin phone number (ShipmentServices.xml#setShipmentSettingsFromPrimaryOrder line 568 Cannot find a shipping origin phone number for WS10123) 3. Shipping destination address Also, purchase order notification is not sent. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.2#6252)
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.04 (5th)
+1 Anil Patel On Aug 8, 2014, at 9:36 PM, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: This is the vote thread to release a new bug fix release for the release12.04 branch. This new release, Apache OFBiz 12.04.04 will supersede all the previous releases from the same branch. The release files can be downloaded from here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ and are: * apache-ofbiz-12.04.04.zip * KEYS: text file with keys * apache-ofbiz-12.04.04.zip.asc: the detached signature file * apache-ofbiz-12.04.04.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.04.zip.sha: hashes Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). Vote: [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.04 [ -1] do not release This vote will be open for 5 days. For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html Kind Regards, Jacopo
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.04 (4th vote)
+1 Anil Patel On Aug 6, 2014, at 1:35 AM, Ashish Vijaywargiya vijaywargiya.ash...@gmail.com wrote: +1 -- Ashish On Monday, August 4, 2014, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@gmail.com wrote: This is the vote thread to release a new bug fix release for the release12.04 branch. This new release, Apache OFBiz 12.04.04 will supersede all the previous releases from the same branch. The release files can be downloaded from here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ and are: * apache-ofbiz-12.04.04.zip * KEYS: text file with keys * apache-ofbiz-12.04.04.zip.asc: the detached signature file * apache-ofbiz-12.04.04.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.04.zip.sha: hashes Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html ). Vote: [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.04 [ -1] do not release This vote will be open for 5 days. For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html Kind Regards, Jacopo
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Pierre, Please elaborate, may be I can help. Are you saying PMC should set guidelines for documentation that should be delivered with each new feature or bug fix? Thanks and Regards Anil Patel COO Hotwax Media Inc http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/ ApacheCon US 2014 Silver Sponsor http://na.apachecon.com/sponsor/our-sponsors On Jun 16, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: Adrian, My apologies, but I must have missed your answer to the question stated below. Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which the PMC agrees? Regard, Pierre Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad Op 16 jun. 2014 om 23:11 heeft Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com het volgende geschreven: I answered the questions. Why don't you take some time and actually read my replies? Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/16/2014 1:20 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: Adrian, Why don't you, as a representative of the PMC, start with trying to answer the questions one by one? So that Ron and other community members can indeed improve documentation regarding the various aspects of the product Regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: I'm confused. Are you asking for guidance to improve the project, or are you simply ranting because the project doesn't measure up to your standards? Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/16/2014 11:13 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: On 16/06/2014 1:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: Keep in mind that this is an all volunteer, open source project. Therefore, there is no industry standard. Does the same assumption apply that volunteers can not write code that meets industry standards for quality or functionality just because they are not paid? There are a number of Apache projects that have very good documentation. Those who have contributed documentation in the past learned by using the software and asking questions on the user mailing list. No wonder the docs are in such poor shape. It is hard enough to write docs but to expect that users are going to reverse-engineer use cases and UI functionality from code and config files or playing with screens to write docs for code that someone else writes is way too much to expect from a volunteer. Ron Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: And where would I get the facts to include in the documentation? Is there a secret place where the people writing code write down what the user is supposed to do with the code (use cases)? The copy of the distribution that I downloaded did not even include a draft Release Note. Does the PMC consider that the documentation currently existing to be correct, complete and in line with what is industry standard for a version 12.x.x release? Ron On 16/06/2014 11:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: This is a maintenance release, so it includes any documentation that existed when the release branch was created. If you would like to see more documentation included in the trunk, then feel free to submit patches to Jira. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 6/16/2014 8:15 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote: -1 Given the errors in the wiki documentation and the lack of on-line help, it is hard to see how this could be considered tested (try to install it using the docs for a recommended production database and you can see it is not possible that it passed manual tests unless the test suite is too trivial to be taken seriously) or complete (on-line help just opens a page of sections headings that does not do anything when you click on it). I don't see any Release notes in the distribution. Are the new features at least documented? Did the use cases for the new features and bug fixes get into the documentation? If the PMC group continues to allow new releases to be made without any attention to documentation, OfBiz will never get the documentation that it needs. At least make documentation of items that are worked on in a release, mandatory. Is it possible for the PMC to set some targets for a target level of documentation so that there is a baseline set of JIRA issues on which the PMC agrees? Ron On 16/06/2014 9:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: +1 Jacopo On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 12.04 branch. This new release, Apache OFBiz 12.04.03 (major release number: 12.04; minor release number: 03), will supersede
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
Pierre, I want to help. Lets first get on same page for role of PMC, Below is the link to document that helps us all understand our role in project. http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles I will spend sometime to understand Ron’s recommendations and figure out what I can do to help. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel COO Hotwax Media Inc http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/ ApacheCon US 2014 Silver Sponsor http://na.apachecon.com/sponsor/our-sponsors On Jun 17, 2014, at 9:57 AM, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: Anil, In stead of turning this around, maybe you should express what the responsibility of the PMC is. So that newcomers like Ron can get a feel of what to expect. Regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.03
+1 Thanks and Regards Anil Patel COO Hotwax Media Inc http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/ ApacheCon US 2014 Silver Sponsor http://na.apachecon.com/sponsor/our-sponsors On Jun 9, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 12.04 branch. This new release, Apache OFBiz 12.04.03 (major release number: 12.04; minor release number: 03), will supersede the release Apache OFBiz 12.04.02. The release files can be downloaded from here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ (committers only) or from here: http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ (everyone else) and are: * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 branch at revision 1601320 (latest as of now) * KEYS: text file with keys * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file * apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.03.zip.sha: hashes Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). Vote: [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.03 [ -1] do not release This vote will be closed in 5 days. For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html The following text is quoted from the above url: Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release manager. Kind Regards, Jacopo
Re: ApacheCon
Ean, Please talk to Mike, He may have a pass that he can give you. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel COO Hotwax Media Inc http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/ ApacheCon US 2014 Silver Sponsor http://na.apachecon.com/sponsor/our-sponsors On Apr 3, 2014, at 4:32 PM, Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com wrote: I have some business in Los Angeles and may consider coming through Denver to meet with people. I'm not particularly interested in paying $700 for ApacheCon because I feel that the price is too high. Sorry if that seems unsupportive. How many people will be in town for ApacheCon and would there be an interest in putting together a BoF or dinner or something? -- Ean Schuessler, CTO e...@brainfood.com 214-720-0700 x 315 Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com
Re: ApacheCon North America, Denver, April 7-11
The tutorial is planned for developers who want to get started in developing application on OFBiz platform. Contents of session are based on community developed beginners guide (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/OFBiz+Tutorial+-+A+Beginners+Development+Guide). As a example, we will develop Travel Expense management application. My plan is to cover following use cases, 1) Create Travel Expense report. Its Invoice of type: Travel Expense. This report will have 4 categories of items, i.e InvoiceItemType. 2) Request approval from a Manager. A workeffort will be assigned to Party in Manager role. Manager will reassign workeffort back to reporter with questions or may approve the invoice. 3) Request reimbursement from AP. A workeffort will be assigned to Accountant. Accountant will reassign workeffort back to reporter or manager with question or may Pay the invoice. I am planning to complete development of this application before ApacheCon. Lets see how much I get done. I will provide source code under ASL 2.0, may be I will create a Jira ticket and post patch on it or create component in extras. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel COO Hotwax Media Inc http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/ ApacheCon US 2013 Gold Sponsor http://na.apachecon.com/sponsors/ On Mar 19, 2014, at 8:50 AM, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: Anil, In the schedule of the ApacheCon NA 2014 I read that you will be hosting/entertaining a tutorial session on development in OFBiz, in which you will take our discussion on the Expense Declaration and the initiative to have such an application as a starting point c.q. goal. Could you elaborate a bit on your approach and expected (technical - functional) result? Also, how could this community, I assist you in your preparation for this event? Regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com
Re: The future of OFBiz - Open Discussion
Jacques, What do you mean when you say you agree with Pierre? Thanks and Regards Anil Patel COO Hotwax Media Inc http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/ ApacheCon US 2013 Gold Sponsor http://na.apachecon.com/sponsors/ On Mar 18, 2014, at 2:26 PM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: I agree with you Pierre, but please consider to add at least a sentence on what you are replying to. The reason is some persons use Nabble instead of directly the ML. And sometimes it takes few minutes for Nabble to sync with the ML, so it might be confusing. Thanks Jacques Le 18/03/2014 14:04, Pierre Smits a écrit : Hi All, It would be better to discuss the necessity and/or merits of each (JIRA) issue in the issue itself, in stead of making generalizing assertions. It would keep focus and would show that collaboration takes place to resolve issues in this project. Regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com
Re: The future of OFBiz - Open Discussion
Jacques, Thanks for clarification. I have put my comments on Jira. My email on this email thread is my response to Paul’s big email about Hotwax Media. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel COO Hotwax Media Inc http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/ ApacheCon US 2013 Gold Sponsor http://na.apachecon.com/sponsors/ On Mar 18, 2014, at 5:22 PM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: Anil, Simply that we should put/keep comments in Jira issues when they are related. This for history sake, I think I wrote that maybe a dozen times already. Jacques Le 18/03/2014 19:38, Anil Patel a écrit : Jacques, What do you mean when you say you agree with Pierre? Thanks and Regards Anil Patel COO Hotwax Media Inc http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/ ApacheCon US 2013 Gold Sponsor http://na.apachecon.com/sponsors/ On Mar 18, 2014, at 2:26 PM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: I agree with you Pierre, but please consider to add at least a sentence on what you are replying to. The reason is some persons use Nabble instead of directly the ML. And sometimes it takes few minutes for Nabble to sync with the ML, so it might be confusing. Thanks Jacques Le 18/03/2014 14:04, Pierre Smits a écrit : Hi All, It would be better to discuss the necessity and/or merits of each (JIRA) issue in the issue itself, in stead of making generalizing assertions. It would keep focus and would show that collaboration takes place to resolve issues in this project. Regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com
Re: Proposal to back port some changes to 13.07
+1 Thanks and Regards Anil Patel Hotwax Media Inc http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/ ApacheCon US 2013 Gold Sponsor http://na.apachecon.com/sponsors/ On Sep 13, 2013, at 3:07 AM, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: Hi all, I would like to backport to the new 13.07 branch some changes recently committed to the trunk (that are not bug fixes): a) Revisions: 1518925 (and the related minor 151, 1520319, 1520321, 1520326, 1520509) Moved Lucene dependent code out of applications b) Revision 1520510, 1520744: Simplified the layout of the main/framework/applications/specialpurpose build files Main reasons for #a: * if we backport, the users of 13.07, if interested in Lucene features, will have an easy way to deploy the specialpurpose/lucene app without conflicts with code embedded in applications * in the trunk, the lucene code in specialpurpose has been upgraded to the latest release that includes bug fixes over the version currently used in 13.07 Main reasons for #b: * the build files 13.07 have been modified in the branch in order to support the fact that in the branch we don't have most of the specialpurpose components; if we sync them with the simplified build files (without redundant targets) that are now in trunk it will be easier to maintain them in the branch when further changes will need to be backported Any objections? Thanks, Jacopo
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 11.04.03
+1 Anil Patel On Jul 13, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 11.04 branch. This new release, Apache OFBiz 11.04.03 (major release number: 11.04; minor release number: 03), will supersede the release Apache OFBiz 11.04.02. The release files can be downloaded from here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ (committers only) or from here: http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ (everyone else) and are: * apache-ofbiz-11.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 11.04 branch (latest revision as of now) * KEYS: text file with keys * apache-ofbiz-11.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file * apache-ofbiz-11.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-11.04.03.zip.sha: hashes Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). Vote: [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 11.04.03 [ -1] do not release This vote will be closed in Thursday, 18th of July. For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html The following text is quoted from the above url: Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release manager. Kind Regards, Jacopo
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 10.04.06
+1 Regards Anil Patel Sent from my iPhone On Jul 13, 2013, at 6:41 PM, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 10.04 branch. This new release, Apache OFBiz 10.04.06 (major release number: 10.04; minor release number: 06), will supersede the release Apache OFBiz 10.04.05. The release files can be downloaded from here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ (committers only) or from here: http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ (everyone else) and are: * apache-ofbiz-10.04.06.zip: the release package, based on the 10.04 branch (latest revision as of now) * KEYS: text file with keys * apache-ofbiz-10.04.06.zip.asc: the detached signature file * apache-ofbiz-10.04.06.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-10.04.06.zip.sha: hashes Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). Vote: [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 10.04.06 [ -1] do not release This vote will be closed in Thursday, 18th of July. For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html The following text is quoted from the above url: Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release manager. Kind Regards, Jacopo
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.02
+1 Regards Anil Patel Sent from my iPhone On Jul 13, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 12.04 branch. This new release, Apache OFBiz 12.04.02 (major release number: 12.04; minor release number: 02), will supersede the release Apache OFBiz 12.04.01. The release files can be downloaded from here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ (committers only) or from here: http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ (everyone else) and are: * apache-ofbiz-12.04.02.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 branch (latest revision as of now) * KEYS: text file with keys * apache-ofbiz-12.04.02.zip.asc: the detached signature file * apache-ofbiz-12.04.02.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.02.zip.sha: hashes Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). Vote: [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.02 [ -1] do not release This vote will be closed in Thursday, 18th of July. For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html The following text is quoted from the above url: Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release manager. Kind Regards, Jacopo
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 12.04.01
+1 Thanks and Regards Anil Patel Hotwax Media Inc http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/ ApacheCon US 2013 Gold Sponsor http://na.apachecon.com/sponsors/ On Mar 26, 2013, at 12:32 PM, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: This is the vote thread to approve the first release for the 12.04 branch. This new release, Apache OFBiz 12.04.01 (major release number: 12.04; minor release number: 01) is the first release of the 12.04 series and contains all the features of the trunk up to April 2012 and since then has been stabilized with bug fixes. It will become the OFBiz current stable release and users of the 11.04 series will be encouraged to migrate to this release. The candidate release files can be downloaded from here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ (committers only) or from here: http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ (everyone else) and are: * apache-ofbiz-12.04.01.zip: the release package, based on the 12.04 branch at revision 1461136 (latest as of now) * KEYS: text file with keys * apache-ofbiz-12.04.01.zip.asc: the detached signature file * apache-ofbiz-12.04.01.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-12.04.01.zip.sha: hashes Please download the zip file and check its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html), then test the release. Vote: [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 12.04.01 [ -1] do not release This vote will be closed in Monday, 1st of April. For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html The following text is quoted from the above url: Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release manager. Jacopo Cappellato
Re: In preparation for the 13.04 branch
I think we should not include anything from specialpurpose folder in next release. Deepak mentioned about an item that we may have to move to application folder, lets do that. In the process we may find few other similar things. Applications in specialpurpose folder can have their own release cycles. At that point ecommerce application will compete with third party applications like BigFish. Sometime in future either ecommerce application will be upgraded and become popular or will loose its fans to better third party application. Our goal should be to enhance the core and let service providers build specialpurpose applications. Regards Anil Patel On Mar 23, 2013, at 6:35 AM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: I'm also for keeping the specialpurpose/ecommerce component in releases, it's an important part of the OFBiz brand. I'd also like we finalize its UI, tought I have not much time/energy to put in it. At least 3 Jira are waiting for ages, 2 of them are important https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3037 BTW about our slim-down effort, In Jira I see https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20OFBIZ%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20SlimDown that issues are done (I'd not want to change the Examples components more) What else? Jacques From: Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com Based on the feedback from Deepak and Medhat: what if we include ecommerce only? I mean: we remove from the 13.04 branch all the specialpurpose components except the ecommerce component; we could also include the example component, but that is probably less useful in a release. The ecommerce component has been historically always present in all our releases (as it has been implemented in the applications folder). Jacopo On Mar 23, 2013, at 6:59 AM, Medhat AbdelBadie medhat7...@gmail.com wrote: It is OK, But Does this mean ecommerce application will be removed to another directory, or will be entirely suppressed from the new release and released separately? Does this mean we will have main release with core components, and any other components will be treated as plugins or something like that? Regards, Medhat On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Deepak Dixit deepak.di...@hotwaxmedia.comwrote: +1 One thing will need to move convertProductPriceCurrency property from ecommerce.properies file, may be place it in catalog.properties or in some other property file. As this is used for automatic product price currency conversion (r1125215). Thanks Regards -- Deepak Dixit On Mar 23, 2013, at 2:40 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Agreed Jacques From: Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com That seems pretty harmless. Anyone wanting to use specialpurpose can just add it to their local copy. -Adrian On 3/22/2013 4:19 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: Hi all, the next month is the month of the creation of our annual branch release: release13.04. In preparation for this, I would like to propose to exclude from the upcoming new branch the specialpurpose folder and some of the themes components: this is inline with what we have discussed recently for the trunk (and there seemed to be a good consensus/interest about this), i.e. separating the specialpurpose folders into an optional module that is not built and deployed by default: for the trunk this requires some work to make the build scripts more flexible, but for the branch it is much simpler (we can simply remove the folders from the branch). This will help a lot to avoid the risk to receive vulnerability reports for the future releases, that require a good amount of work for us; in fact there are a lot of external jars in specialpurpose and if we deliver them in our releases we should also take care of making sure that, if the external projects issue new releases with fixes for vulnerabilities then we should also issue a new release as well: maintaining this is time consuming and also reviewing all the code to make sure it meets good standard of quality and it is clear from license issues when a release is issued is becoming an overwhelming effort. If we deliver in releases a smaller codebase, everything will be easier and more manageable. Of course we can still decide to issue a release of specialpurpose components separately. WDYT? Jacopo
Re: Slim-down effort: current situation
One of the solutions is to create brach on github, https://github.com/apache/ofbiz. A feature can be developed on Github and then a final patch can be submitted to Ofbiz Jira. Regards Anil Patel On Jan 4, 2013, at 9:17 AM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: I was reading this article and suddenly thought: why not giving access to branches in OFBiz project to people who need more than a patch to submit in a Jira (clearly Tom and I would have loved that)? http://prng.blogspot.fr/2009/02/commit-access-its-social-problem.html Opinions? Jacques From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Yes thanks! Jacques From: Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com On Dec 16, 2012, at 9:07 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: I even wonder if Jacopo did not make a more recent (and flexible) proposition with which I totaly agreed (during fall, it seems to me but, I can't find it), Jacopo? Do you mean the following? BTW, some time ago I also proposed an alternative path: see email with subject [PROPOSAL] from specialpurpose to extras: to that I can add that we could provide two set of ant scripts, one similar to the one we have that builds/tests everything (framework+applications+specialpurpose) and one (the default) that only builds/tests the framework+applications; the release branches may only contain the framework+applications and separate releases of specialpurpose applications could be voted/released at different time. This approach may reach two goals: 1) slim down the main code that the community is more focused to improve/maintain/release 2) keep under the OFBiz community the ownership of all the other specialpurpose components; if one of them will get more attention and interest and could grow in quality or it is generic enough we could decide to move it to the release branch (maybe move it to applications) Jacopo
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 11.04.01
+1 Anil Patel On Nov 13, 2012, at 5:25 AM, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: This is the vote thread to approve the first release for the 11.04 branch. This new release, Apache OFBiz 11.04.01 (major release number: 11.04; minor release number: 01) is the first release of the 11.04 series and contains all the features of the trunk up to April 2011 and since then has been stabilized with bug fixes. It will become the OFBiz current stable release and users of the 10.04 series will be encouraged to migrate to it. The candidate release files can be downloaded from here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ (committers only) or from here: http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ (everyone else) and are: * apache-ofbiz-11.04.01.zip: the release package, based on the 11.04 branch at revision 1408646 (latest as of now) * KEYS: text file with keys * apache-ofbiz-11.04.01.zip.asc: the detached signature file * apache-ofbiz-11.04.01.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-11.04.01.zip.sha: hashes Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures seehttp://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). Vote: [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 11.04.01 [ -1] do not release This vote will be closed in 72 hours. For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html The following text is quoted from the above url: Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release manager. Kind Regards, Jacopo
Re: OFBIZ-4941
Tom, On Nov 10, 2012, at 2:51 PM, Tom tramseybu...@yahoo.com wrote: Jacopo, A) The hard code in fieldlookup.js will go away when all forms are documented. That will leave the code that test for locale. I'm open for suggestions on how that could be done in some other way but given what I see as the superiority of the proposed solution I do not think this should be a show stopper. I hate to use Javascript more then needed. In this case, We can build link to help document during the screen rendering process. We need something similar to OfbizUrl transform. B) Code was added in ofbiz-component.xml when BIRT was moved to specialpurpose. That code caused the current help to break. The latest code for the proposed system is not effected by ofbiz-component.xml. This is because it is at the webapp not component level. ofbiz-component.xml can revert back to what it was. Note: If you do not use the proposed system you will need to go back and do something with the BIRT ofbiz-component.xml (which needs work in any case). It causes birt help to be invoked when you try to open accounting help (or any of the other components mounted in BIRT). C) All the help was placed in the content component because it was the home for a subset of the docbook xls distribution. It made sense to replace that code with the latest implementation and keep everything in one place rather then do something in special purpose or hot deploy with a duplicate xls code. It also makes sense since help is content and not an application. I do not see how moving the content to the application will make it independent. Are you going to duplicate the docbook distribution in each application? I am little confused here. How is proposed help system using Ofbiz CMS? D) Covered by Jacques E) As Jacques noted it is transformed by ant using docbook xls. I do not understand his comment So maintenance worries F) It is loaded by the docbook xsl webhelp web application which is the heart of the system. webhelp makes extensive use of jquery. Also Re: In my opinion we can't have the luxury to maintain two help systems in OFBiz. True - when I have updated as promised the current system can and should be removed. That said the code will support both systems during transition. Re: Help links should point to a URL that is retrieved from the UI labels file (to support i18n). That way Help content can be located anywhere - inside or outside OFBiz. Help is invoked using a mechanism similar to the current system (themes). It supports i18n in some logic in fieldlookup.js as mentioned in (A). All of the help files are compiled HTML (unlike the current system which is transformed at runtime). They could just as easily be deployed to the OFBiz site or any other web site. They are also easily transformed into pdf and can be posted anywhere. I look forward to any other questions or comments you may have. Tom -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/OFBIZ-4941-tp4637418p4637441.html Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: OFBIZ-4941
On Nov 10, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: On 11/10/2012 1:48 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: Thank you Jacques, here is some quick feedback after a review of the patch. A) all the code in framework/images/webapp/images/fieldlookup.js is bad because contains hardcoded application/components B) what is this? Index: specialpurpose/birt/ofbiz-component.xml === --- specialpurpose/birt/ofbiz-component.xml (revision 1407381) +++ specialpurpose/birt/ofbiz-component.xml (working copy) @@ -29,7 +29,6 @@ entity-resource type=data reader-name=seed loader=main location=data/OrderPortletData.xml/ service-resource type=model loader=main location=servicedef/services.xml/ - !-- use when reports need to be injected into applications Note: this will break context help for those applications. webapp name=accounting title=Accounting server=default-server @@ -50,7 +49,6 @@ location=webapp/ordermgr base-permission=OFBTOOLS,ORDERMGR mount-point=/ordermgr/ --- webapp name=birt title=BIRT server=default-server C) I still think it is a bad idea to add dependencies to the content component on other applications like: applications/content/webapp/ofbizhelp/catalog_en D) did you check the compliance with licenses? See this for example: +/* + * JavaScript for webhelp search + * + This file is part of the webhelpsearch plugin for DocBook WebHelp + Copyright (c) 2007-2008 NexWave Solutions All Rights Reserved. + www.nexwave.biz Nadege Quaine + http://kasunbg.blogspot.com/ Kasun Gajasinghe + */ E) how was generated the content of (for example): Index: applications/content/webapp/ofbizhelp/catalog_en/content/search/htmlFileInfoList.js ? How should we maintain it? F) why this: applications/content/webapp/ofbizhelp/catalog_en/common/jquery/jquery-1.4.2.min.js ? I think it is enough for now, but the changes are big and I couldn't review everything. In general, my preference would be to see this type of contribution being implemented as a pluggable feature (with data mainatined externally in Confluence or in a specialpurpose or extra component) rather than being part of the trunk. Thanks Jacopo. This has been my position all along. Help links should point to a URL that is retrieved from the UI labels file (to support i18n). That way Help content can be located anywhere - inside or outside OFBiz. If an application wants to use the OFBiz Content application to implement Help, then it is free to do so. +1 We should be able to very easily override help content. -Adrian
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 10.04.04
+1 On Nov 8, 2012, at 8:28 AM, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 10.04 branch. This new release, Apache OFBiz 10.04.04 (major release number: 10.04; minor release number: 04), will supersede the release Apache OFBiz 10.04.03. Main reason for this new release (after the recent release of 10.04.03) is that the new version is bundled with an updated release of Tomcat containing some fixes for vulnerabilities recently announced by the Tomcat community. The release files can be downloaded from here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ (committers only) or from here: http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ (everyone else) and are: * apache-ofbiz-10.04.04.zip: the release package, based on the 10.04 branch at revision 1407002 (latest as of now) * KEYS: text file with keys * apache-ofbiz-10.04.04.zip.asc: the detached signature file * apache-ofbiz-10.04.04.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-10.04.04.zip.sha: hashes Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures seehttp://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). Vote: [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 10.04.04 [ -1] do not release This vote will be closed in 72 hours. For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html The following text is quoted from the above url: Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release manager. Kind Regards, Jacopo
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 10.04.03
+1 Anil Patel On Oct 14, 2012, at 11:29 AM, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 10.04 branch. This new release, Apache OFBiz 10.04.03 (major release number: 10.04; minor release number: 03), will supersede the release Apache OFBiz 10.04.02. The release files can be downloaded from here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ (committers only) or from here: http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ (everyone else) and are: * apache-ofbiz-10.04.03.zip: the release package, based on the 10.04 branch at revision 1398088 (latest as of now) * KEYS: text file with keys * apache-ofbiz-10.04.03.zip.asc: the detached signature file * apache-ofbiz-10.04.03.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-10.04.03.zip.sha: hashes Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). Vote: [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 10.04.03 [ -1] do not release This vote will be closed in 72 hours. For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html The following text is quoted from the above url: Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release manager. Kind Regards, Jacopo
Re: SOLR faceted search.
This is good news, How about adding it to Ofbiz Extras? Having a popular module in Extras will keep the kickstart community around Ofbiz Extras. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc On Jul 23, 2012, at 2:35 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: We have developed a faceted search with solr for one of our customers. It is a separate component. Is there an interest if i commit it to the specialized directory together with ecommerce? Regards, Hans
Re: svn commit: r1361130 [1/3] - in /ofbiz/trunk: ./ applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/WEB-INF/ applications/accounting/webapp/accounting/WEB-INF/actions/payment/ applications/accounting/webap
Jacopo, Thanks for your efforts. This step also opens Options in User community for using various third party BI/Reporting tools. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc On Jul 13, 2012, at 3:58 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: Thank you, Jacques: I have spent a lot of time enhancing the framework to make this possible and taking design decisions to isolate birt code into one component, so I truly appreciate your comment. I think that with this new layout the birt component, when moved to extras, will be easy to enhance and free to evolve accordingly to the desires of the maintainers of it; for example, they could decide to split it into two hot-deploy components: birt (with framework code) and birtappls (with reports) or similar. Jacopo On Jul 13, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Thanks for the effort Jacopo, Really appreciated! Jacques From: jaco...@apache.org Author: jacopoc Date: Fri Jul 13 09:48:32 2012 New Revision: 1361130 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1361130view=rev Log: Moved the birt component out of framework to specialpurpose; moved all the birt reports from the applications to the birt component itself, where the application webapps are overriden to inject the reports; the end result is the same but since all these birt reports are simply a proof of concepts that cannot be used in production (for example they use hardcoded userlogin for authentication) the birt component should be probably disabled by default (but this will be discussed in the dev list). Now it will be very easy to extract the birt component (for OFBiz Extras) or to disable it when deploying to production or when interested in sparing some hardware resources. I did some cursory tests but since the work has been challenging and rather complex I would appreciate testing help and also reviews to finds chunks of code that I could have missed and that could be moved out as well.
Re: Backport Mini-language Overhaul To Release 12 Branch
+1 Anil Patel On Jul 8, 2012, at 3:55 PM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: This subject has been mentioned in other threads, but I'm making it a separate thread so everyone has a chance to comment. I would like to backport the Mini-language overhaul in its entirety to the Release 12 branch. The overhaul contains some new features (break, continue, trace elements, and element validation), but most of the work was bug fixes (the model classes were not thread-safe, many bits of code did not work). So, the backport is not purely a bug fix. Separating the code so that only bug fixes are backported would be difficult - because the overhaul represents 6 MB of changes. I have backported the overhaul to Release 12 on my local machine and everything works fine. If there are no objections in the next few days, I would like to commit those changes. -Adrian
Re: Move AR and AP web applications our of Accounting into Extras
Hi, I agree that toolset for supporting AR and AP processes are important for a business. Like Jacopo mentioned, AR and AP webapplications don't have any that does not already exists in Accounting webapplication. AR and AP webapplications are special purpose apps that try bring together screens relevant to context and User Role. So by removing AR and AP application from Accounting component we'll not be removing any functionality. User will still be able to do comparable thing from Accounting application. If there are exception I'll ensure its added to accounting before removing AR and AP apps from Accounting application. Also Moving Application out from Accounting to Ofbiz Extras does not mean that we have abandoned it. All it means is, User will install those apps based on their needs. I have seen many eCommerce installations that don't use accounting application at all. Such users will appreciate to get slim down Ofbiz :) Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc On Apr 8, 2012, at 4:13 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: It is very normal in FICO solutions to have as much as possible a separation of concern implemented. This is applicable with regards to inbound and outbound money flows (AR vs AP), and in and outbound flow of goods (and the valueation thereof in FICO). For that (larger) companies ensure that people involved in AR would not have access to functions in AP. But in more sophisticated ERP solutions that also applicable with the financial aspects of Asset Maint (that OFBiz has in the special purpose application Asset Maint),stock movements, the wages,tax, pensions and soc sec administration of personell , and liquid asset (cash, banks and cc-) administration. All these are normally handled in sub accounting solutions (as are AR and AP, stock) where transactions are registered per identified item (ie the customer, supplier, stock item) and consolidated in transactions entries in the general part of FICO. Regards, Pierre Op 8 april 2012 07:53 schreef Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com het volgende: But for what I understand the AR and AP applications contain alternative screens to the ones in the main accounting application. They are an effort to implement more focused/specific applications versus the more generic accounting application. So, the main accounting application should already contain both the AR/AP features, but some of its screens could serve both. I would be in favor of the removal if we can make sure that all the features that are removed are still available (even if in a more generic way) in the accounting application. Jacopo On Apr 8, 2012, at 1:23 AM, David E Jones wrote: When I first saw the subject I was thinking this as well. I always wondered why those were created as separate applications, perhaps for permission reasons I suppose. In a way they make more sense as part of the accounting webapp instead of in separate ones. -David Pierre Smits wrote: - 1 Accounts payable (AP) and accounts receivable (AP) are together with the ability to process accounting transactions the core ingredients of a good FICO solution. Without both any accountant will state that your accounting solution is worthless. Without both core accounting components you (as a company) would have no overview of money owed to you or that you owe to others. Regards, Pierre Op 7 april 2012 19:41 schreef Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.comhet volgende: +1 Jacques Anil Patel wrote: Hi, Like lot of other stuff, I think AR and AP applications should be moved out of Ofbiz Accounting component. As such they are special purpose application, but again not core to Ofbiz application framework. I recommend we should relocate AR and AP webapplications out of Ofbiz Accounting to Ofbiz Extras. If we as community agree, I'll put efforts to complete the job. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc
Re: Move AR and AP web applications our of Accounting into Extras
Pierre, Its possible that my previous email was not clear enough. Also its possible that you have not used Ofbiz Accounting, AR and AP applications. Few things that we need to keep in mind before deciding either way, There is nothing in AR and AP application that does not exists in Ofbiz Accounting application. For this exact reason, I am proposing to remove AR and AP web applications from Ofbiz Accounting. Also I am NOT saying that we'll throw AR and AP applications out the Window. I am proposing to move AR and AP screens and forms to Ofbiz Extras. It will still be a application that will work with Ofbiz and will be supported like its supported today in Ofbiz. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc On Apr 9, 2012, at 9:09 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: Hi Anil, Are you proposing and committing yourself to bring all non-overlapping functions in AP and AR to the core of the accounting application whilst maintaining the added value these to sub components offer regarding user friendliness and separation of concerns BEFORE moving AP and AR out to the pasture? In other words, redo all the work already done and perfectly working in both sub components of accounting? I would say: if it aint broken, don't try to fix it! Regards, Pierre Op 10 april 2012 00:41 schreef Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com het volgende: Hi, I agree that toolset for supporting AR and AP processes are important for a business. Like Jacopo mentioned, AR and AP webapplications don't have any that does not already exists in Accounting webapplication. AR and AP webapplications are special purpose apps that try bring together screens relevant to context and User Role. So by removing AR and AP application from Accounting component we'll not be removing any functionality. User will still be able to do comparable thing from Accounting application. If there are exception I'll ensure its added to accounting before removing AR and AP apps from Accounting application. Also Moving Application out from Accounting to Ofbiz Extras does not mean that we have abandoned it. All it means is, User will install those apps based on their needs. I have seen many eCommerce installations that don't use accounting application at all. Such users will appreciate to get slim down Ofbiz :) Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc On Apr 8, 2012, at 4:13 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: It is very normal in FICO solutions to have as much as possible a separation of concern implemented. This is applicable with regards to inbound and outbound money flows (AR vs AP), and in and outbound flow of goods (and the valueation thereof in FICO). For that (larger) companies ensure that people involved in AR would not have access to functions in AP. But in more sophisticated ERP solutions that also applicable with the financial aspects of Asset Maint (that OFBiz has in the special purpose application Asset Maint),stock movements, the wages,tax, pensions and soc sec administration of personell , and liquid asset (cash, banks and cc-) administration. All these are normally handled in sub accounting solutions (as are AR and AP, stock) where transactions are registered per identified item (ie the customer, supplier, stock item) and consolidated in transactions entries in the general part of FICO. Regards, Pierre Op 8 april 2012 07:53 schreef Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com het volgende: But for what I understand the AR and AP applications contain alternative screens to the ones in the main accounting application. They are an effort to implement more focused/specific applications versus the more generic accounting application. So, the main accounting application should already contain both the AR/AP features, but some of its screens could serve both. I would be in favor of the removal if we can make sure that all the features that are removed are still available (even if in a more generic way) in the accounting application. Jacopo On Apr 8, 2012, at 1:23 AM, David E Jones wrote: When I first saw the subject I was thinking this as well. I always wondered why those were created as separate applications, perhaps for permission reasons I suppose. In a way they make more sense as part of the accounting webapp instead of in separate ones. -David Pierre Smits wrote: - 1 Accounts payable (AP) and accounts receivable (AP) are together with the ability to process accounting transactions the core ingredients of a good FICO solution. Without both any accountant will state that your accounting solution is worthless. Without both core accounting components you (as a company) would have no overview of money owed to you or that you owe to others. Regards, Pierre Op 7 april 2012 19:41 schreef Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.comhet volgende: +1 Jacques Anil Patel wrote: Hi, Like lot of other
Move AR and AP web applications our of Accounting into Extras
Hi, Like lot of other stuff, I think AR and AP applications should be moved out of Ofbiz Accounting component. As such they are special purpose application, but again not core to Ofbiz application framework. I recommend we should relocate AR and AP webapplications out of Ofbiz Accounting to Ofbiz Extras. If we as community agree, I'll put efforts to complete the job. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc
Re: Lose Weight Program for OFBiz - what should go to specialpurpose
People are really worried on the idea of moving certain components from Ofbiz trunk to Ofbiz Extras. Why is it so? Moving a component from Ofbiz trunk to Ofbiz Extras does not mean that the component is not good and so we are throwing it out. Instead idea is to allow components to grow by giving them little more freedom. Like Jacopo mentioned in one of his responses, Projects from Ofbiz Extras can still post updates on Ofbiz lists. Finally if a Project in Extras is useful for business, people will keep improving it and community will grow. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:34 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: They are more generic sure, I wonder for the pos... Jacques From: Mansour Al Akeel mansour.alak...@gmail.com Jacques, Yes. You are right. I meant projectmgr. :) I believe assetmaint and projectmgr are used more than others and good to keep them where they are. Thank you. On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: partymgr is in application will not move, you meant ProjectMgr right? Jacques From: Mansour Al Akeel mansour.alak...@gmail.com I would recommend keeping partymgr and assetmaint. I am not sure if accounting depends on assetmain. On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: + 1 on move of majority of apps in specialpurpose to 'Extras', excluding projectmgr as it displays how to use OFBiz in a different industry than ecommerce/webshop. Is it not so that OFBiz is versatile. ProjectMgr does deliver some of that versatility. Regards, Pierre Op 20 maart 2012 12:47 schreef Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com het volgende: H) specialpurpose/*: move several (if not all, apart ecommerce) of the components to Extras (if there are persons interested to become committers/maintainers) or to Attic There seems to be a general agreement to slim down the number of applications in this group and move them to Extras (see exceptions below). I am summarizing here some notes but we should actually use this thread to continue the discussion about what should go to specialpurpose in general rather than focusing on the decision about removal of specific applications; we can then start a separate thread for each component. Adrian would like to keep one or two components to demonstrate the concept of reusing artifacts to create custom applications (Jacopo: can we use the exampleext component for this?) Hans would like to keep the ones that he considers feature complete like asset maintenance, LDAP, POS, e-commerce, cmssite, projectmgr and scrum. Jacopo: in my opinion even in the above list provided by Hans there are applications that are barely examples (cmssite) or are very specific implementation of very specific requirements (difficult to be used if your company doesn't have exactly these requirements): projectmgr and scrum; some of these components also extends (adding special purpose fields) the generic data model and this happens even if the user is not interested in evaluating the specialpurpose component. I also don't think that some of the components meet minimum quality requirements to be distributed with OFBiz: for example the scrum component uses a mechanism that is unique to demo its features (i.e. published a demo webapp with online instructions for demo data) that is not used by other applications (and this makes the suite of applications inconsistent); also, the component refers to resources that are owned by Hans' company. All in all, they seem very specific piece of codes that should better live as optional plugins downloaded separately. So in my opinion the concept of specialpurpose application is in general better suited for Apache Extras rather than for the OFBiz svn and releases.
Re: Lose Weight Program for OFBiz - what should go to specialpurpose
Jacques, I don't use pos, but I think it's good idea to keep it where it's. I think it's more likely, it will be used more than what goes in Extra. It fits specialpurpose. Why do you think a component will be used more if its in specialpurpose section, instead of Extras. Personally think it opposite, If a business is interested in using POS, they will find be able to find it from Extras as well. Like any other Ofbiz application, The Users of POS application will will respond by saying UX sucks :). At that point Company who deployed the POS will be motivated to improve it. If POS is in Extras its will be much easy for new developer to become active committer. In some cases, contributor may want to change License on a components. Doing such thing will be possible for Ofbiz Extras. One of the reasons (I am sure there were many) why OpenTaps was started is License. I will personally like to have more freedom around UI toolset. Ofbiz Extras will make it possible. And if application is well accepted by users then it will get popular and community will grow. Regards Anil Patel On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: People are really worried on the idea of moving certain components from Ofbiz trunk to Ofbiz Extras. Why is it so? Moving a component from Ofbiz trunk to Ofbiz Extras does not mean that the component is not good and so we are throwing it out. Instead idea is to allow components to grow by giving them little more freedom. Like Jacopo mentioned in one of his responses, Projects from Ofbiz Extras can still post updates on Ofbiz lists. Finally if a Project in Extras is useful for business, people will keep improving it and community will grow. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:34 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: They are more generic sure, I wonder for the pos... Jacques From: Mansour Al Akeel mansour.alak...@gmail.com Jacques, Yes. You are right. I meant projectmgr. :) I believe assetmaint and projectmgr are used more than others and good to keep them where they are. Thank you. On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: partymgr is in application will not move, you meant ProjectMgr right? Jacques From: Mansour Al Akeel mansour.alak...@gmail.com I would recommend keeping partymgr and assetmaint. I am not sure if accounting depends on assetmain. On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: + 1 on move of majority of apps in specialpurpose to 'Extras', excluding projectmgr as it displays how to use OFBiz in a different industry than ecommerce/webshop. Is it not so that OFBiz is versatile. ProjectMgr does deliver some of that versatility. Regards, Pierre Op 20 maart 2012 12:47 schreef Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com het volgende: H) specialpurpose/*: move several (if not all, apart ecommerce) of the components to Extras (if there are persons interested to become committers/maintainers) or to Attic There seems to be a general agreement to slim down the number of applications in this group and move them to Extras (see exceptions below). I am summarizing here some notes but we should actually use this thread to continue the discussion about what should go to specialpurpose in general rather than focusing on the decision about removal of specific applications; we can then start a separate thread for each component. Adrian would like to keep one or two components to demonstrate the concept of reusing artifacts to create custom applications (Jacopo: can we use the exampleext component for this?) Hans would like to keep the ones that he considers feature complete like asset maintenance, LDAP, POS, e-commerce, cmssite, projectmgr and scrum. Jacopo: in my opinion even in the above list provided by Hans there are applications that are barely examples (cmssite) or are very specific implementation of very specific requirements (difficult to be used if your company doesn't have exactly these requirements): projectmgr and scrum; some of these components also extends (adding special purpose fields) the generic data model and this happens even if the user is not interested in evaluating the specialpurpose component. I also don't think that some of the components meet minimum quality requirements to be distributed with OFBiz: for example the scrum component uses a mechanism that is unique to demo its features (i.e. published a demo webapp with online instructions for demo data) that is not used by other applications (and this makes the suite of applications inconsistent); also, the component refers to resources that are owned by Hans' company. All in all, they seem very specific piece of codes that should better live as optional plugins downloaded separately. So in my opinion the concept
Re: Lose Weight Program for OFBiz - themes
I prefer keep Flat Gray theme in Ofbiz over others. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel On Mar 20, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: From: Mansour Al Akeel mansour.alak...@gmail.com Flat Gray is simple, and clear. It serves well as a basic theme. AFAIK, it the only theme that supports both directions for languages LTR and RTL. Right and Tomahawk is the last evolution of all others. I prefer Tomahawk: it's easier to find you way because of hierarchised menus (with only 2 levels). Flat Gray is a must have because of LTR and RTL (thanks Adrian!) One project for all themes in Extra makes sense to me. Some/all? (all but Bizzness are pre-evolutions of Tomahawk) could go in Attic (I never got to use Bizzness), to be voted... Jacques On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:33 AM, adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com wrote: My preference is to keep Flat Grey and one other theme - I have no preference on what that other theme is. -Adrian Quoting Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com: I) $OFBIZ_HOME/themes/*: move a few of them to Attic and a few of them to Extras; keep just one (or two) Jacques proposed to keep Tomahawk (default) and Flat Grey. Olivier proposed to keep just one (Tomahawk, I guess). No other comments so far. What should be do with the remaining themes? Attic or Extras? Are there volunteers for Extras? I would suggest that, if we move them to Extras we create *one* project only (for all the themes) rather than one project for theme... but I would love to get your feedback on this. Jacopo
Re: Lose Weight Program for OFBiz - example, exampleext
I use example component as my reference for best practice guide. Still I think its better placed in Ofbiz Extras. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc On Mar 20, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Nicolas Malin wrote: Le 20/03/2012 16:38, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : From: Nicolas Malin malin.nico...@librenberry.net Le 20/03/2012 12:47, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : Q) framework/example and framework/exampleext: move to specialpurpose Adrian would like to keep Example in the framework but slim it down a lot to the essential (no form widgets examples, no Ajax examples, no content examples etc...). Adrian would you please confirm if in your vision the example application should document the layout of a typical OFBiz component only? If yes, we could use the output of the ant create-component task to document the best practice layout. Jacques, Olivier would like to keep also the examples for the various higher level features available to OFBiz applications. I think that from the discussion it could emerge the following solution to please everyone: * keep the example component in the framework but slim it down to the bare essential * move the exampleext component to specialpurpose and migrate to it all the extra features: this could also be used as a best practice guide on how to extend a component from hot-deploy/specialpurpose I still think that it would be nicer to not bundle the example component ootb to keep the framework cleaner: the example should be downloaded separately (when we will have clear separation between framework and the rest); this approach is similar to tomcat and its example applications. But I don't have a strong opinion on this. Jacopo example and exampleext are they useful for production site ? if Apache OFBiz implement a plugin manager, why don't use ant (or other) to prepare OFBiz according to its use. If you want develop on OFBiz, when you download from svn run : ant run-install-dev (it's a example ;)) and ant use plugin manager to resolve all extras project that compose the official OFBiz developer package. Interesting, it's based on Ivy, right? In my mind yes, but I set an idea not a solution ;) Did you ever re-consider Maven (I know the historical ;o)? I guess ant+Ivy is more flexible? I prefer it too, but only crossed Maven during a Geronimo developement I prefer ant + ivy too [my life] At this time, I comment all unneeded components as example on production site. It isn't a problem, just I don't find clean :) [/my life] Yes, I do the same, and certainly others as well... Jacques -- Nicolas MALIN Consultant Tél : 06.17.66.40.06 Site projet : http://www.neogia.org/ --- Société LibrenBerry Tél : 02.48.02.56.12 Site : http://www.librenberry.net/ -- Nicolas MALIN Consultant Tél : 06.17.66.40.06 Site projet : http://www.neogia.org/ --- Société LibrenBerry Tél : 02.48.02.56.12 Site : http://www.librenberry.net/
Re: OFBiz (layout svn repository) and Apache Extras (5)
Sent from my iPhone On Mar 16, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: Hi Olivier, nice to talk with you again. I agree with yours and others comments on this proposal: in short we will setup a page in the OFBiz website with a list of OFBiz related projects in Apache Extras mentioning the license and a small description of what they do and their status; the OFBiz PMC will decide by vote the projects that will be listed in that page and how to describe them. Jacopo On Mar 16, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Olivier Heintz wrote: There are multiple Extra Types : - technical improvement (ex: new tags or attributes in form, screen, ... xml engine) - technical implementation of other tools (ex: a script jsr-233 implementation) - functionality (ex: stock tracability) - user interface for a dedicated business (ex: order B2B versus B2C ) - ... for each, there are multiple status : - available but without user help or unitTest, without OFBiz best practice review - available with user help, unitTest and following OFBiz best practices - with or without a (large) community - with a Apache license 2.0 - with a GPL license - with a commercial license - ... - ... Depending of type and status an extras ofbiz brick can have different life process. For end user (or beginner in the community) it's necessary to be very clear about type and status. In my point of view I see 6 main categories (and so repository and rules) - Apache OFBiz Kernel :-) not an extra, in Apache repository - Apache OFBiz extra : for all which are validated by Apache OFBiz community and ready to use ( ~ like specialpurpose today) - Apache OFBiz extra archives : for part which are, in the past in Apache Ofbiz, but which have no more enough contributors to be usable for the trunk ofbiz (but usable for some other release) - Apache OFBiz extra incubator : step before being accepted as Apache OFBiz extra - OFBiz Extra - name of project : own repository, own community, ready to use, OFBiz best practice following and maybe more specific project rules. - OFBiz Extra - name of project -dev : step before, maybe no help or no test, License constraints should be very visible in each OFBizExtra repository, and the same license for all single subcomponent OFBizExtra. Dependency between part of different OFBizExtra is allowed only if it's compatible with its repository License. ex: a component on Apache License can have a dependency to a GPL technical OFBizExtra brick only if it's stored on a GPL OFBIzExtra repository. The rules applied to each OFBiz Extras-project are defined and checked by the OFBiz PMC, Apache and Extra. Hoping to be clear, and answer or complete the Jacoppo proposition. Olivier ps: I did not argue much, to have a short mail, but :-) I'm able to argue a lot :-) Le 14/03/2012 10:47, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : Hi all, this is a draft of a proposal for a new strategy to setup an ecosystem of extranal projects related with OFBiz (OFBiz Extras). THE GOAL * In the past from time to time we had contributors interested in working on a specific enhancement for OFBiz: because of the nature of their participation and because of the way the community works they could not become OFBiz committers and this made the collaboration more difficult * Recently a committer suggested the use of Apache Extras as a way to implement an OFBiz custom component that could not find its way in the framework * we have also a lot of code in the OFBiz trunk (framework, themes, specialpurpose and applications) that may find a better location outside of the trunk: this could slim down the codebase and in the same time help the grow of an OFBiz ecosystem. While some of the code we have is probably old and could be removed (of course it will always live in the svn history and we will also document the event somewhere) some other code may still be of some interest to a smaller audience: Apache Extras could be a good fit. THE DRAFT OF THE PROPOSAL (inspired by the references at the bottom of this page) Apache Extras is a community of open source projects related to Apache Software Foundation projects or based on their technology. It provides the infrastructure services typically required by open source projects, such as code repositories, bug tracking, project web sites/wiki. Apache Extras is hosted by Google Code Project Hosting, so it will be very familiar to developers already using Google Code Project Hosting. The projects in Apache Extras that accept to follow the rules stated below and are related to Apache OFBiz are grouped under the name OFBiz Extras. The following rules apply to projects in the OFBiz Extras group: * do not include the word Apache in their name but use the name OFBiz Extras -name of the project * do not use the org.apache and the org.ofbiz namespace
Re: Discussion: Mini-language Overhaul
Adrian, Thanks for starting this thread. While we all love mini-lang, I am wondering if we should really ask ourselves if we really want to overhaul mini-lang or should we consider alternates. From what I know, Not many people like to build application using mini lang. Many end up using Java or Groovy. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc On Mar 5, 2012, at 9:47 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: Mini-language has evolved a lot over the years. Most of the development has occurred on an as-needed basis, so there is no clear design or implementation - things just get tacked on over time. A recent discussion has opened up the possibility to rework the mini-language set element. From my perspective, that task is long overdue. Also, the schemas are out of date, and they are unnecessarily complicated. So, those need a thorough going over. While we are at it, why don't we create a draft design document based on the current implementation, and then use it to look for other ways mini-language can be improved? We can all offer suggestions and comments, agree on a final design, finalize the draft, and then implement it in code. The design document then becomes the developer's reference. What do you think? -Adrian
Re: Categories trees in backend
Jacques PS: Often when I try to test a feature (new of fixed) I get sidetracked by unrelated issues. This not only slows reviewing/testing, but also gradually erodes your enthusiasm and good willing. We should really stick to our policy of fixing more and adding as less as possible. Until we get to a point where things are more stabilized. I agree with you. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc
Re: svn commit: r1295344 [1/5] - in /ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/jquery/jquery.mobile-1.1.0-rc.1: ./ images/
Jacopo, Thanks for the note. Before commit, I did take a look at the license file. It has following entry at line #1288. ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/jquery/* The new framework I have added is in a folder under this (jquery) folder. Also the framework uses same license as jquery (MIT), so I did not see need for adding new entry. Do you think I should still do it? Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc On Mar 1, 2012, at 12:52 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: Hi Anil, please update also the LICENSE (and NOTICE, if needed) file. Thanks, Jacopo On Mar 1, 2012, at 12:56 AM, apa...@apache.org wrote: Author: apatel Date: Wed Feb 29 23:56:40 2012 New Revision: 1295344 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1295344view=rev Log: Adding JQuery Mobile library. Also updated hhfacility application to use it. Lot more work needs to be done to make hhfacility application useful, We have a start :)
Re: svn commit: r1295344 [1/5] - in /ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/jquery/jquery.mobile-1.1.0-rc.1: ./ images/
Jacques, I did not understand your message. Can you please rephrase it for me :) Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Yes, I used this at http://markmail.org/message/4iunp7vweqqzgedb I don't remember clearly but I think at this moment I checked it was possible to do so (legit) To be really clean we would need to move some all jquery files (plugins, etc. included) out of ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/jquery/* in it Fortunately it's only in specialpurpose\webpos\webapp\webpos\images\js applications\product\webapp\catalog\imagemanagement\js Jacques From: Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com Thanks Anil, then I think we are fine. Jacopo On Mar 1, 2012, at 2:08 PM, Anil Patel wrote: Jacopo, Thanks for the note. Before commit, I did take a look at the license file. It has following entry at line #1288. ofbiz/trunk/framework/images/webapp/images/jquery/* The new framework I have added is in a folder under this (jquery) folder. Also the framework uses same license as jquery (MIT), so I did not see need for adding new entry. Do you think I should still do it? Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc On Mar 1, 2012, at 12:52 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: Hi Anil, please update also the LICENSE (and NOTICE, if needed) file. Thanks, Jacopo On Mar 1, 2012, at 12:56 AM, apa...@apache.org wrote: Author: apatel Date: Wed Feb 29 23:56:40 2012 New Revision: 1295344 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1295344view=rev Log: Adding JQuery Mobile library. Also updated hhfacility application to use it. Lot more work needs to be done to make hhfacility application useful, We have a start :)
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 09.04.02
+1 Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc On Feb 22, 2012, at 7:09 AM, Sam Hamilton wrote: +1 On 22 Feb 2012, at 16:08, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: This is the vote thread to release a new (bug fix) release for the 09.04 branch. This new release, Apache OFBiz 09.04.02 (major release number: 09.04; minor release number: 02), will supersede the release Apache OFBiz 09.04.01. The release files can be downloaded from here: http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ and are: * apache-ofbiz-09.04.02.zip: the release package, based on the 09.04 branch at revision 1291780 (latest as of now) * KEYS: text file with keys * apache-ofbiz-09.04.02.zip.asc: the detached signature file * apache-ofbiz-09.04.02.zip.md5, apache-ofbiz-09.04.02.zip.sha: hashes Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). Vote: [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 09.04.02 [ -1] do not release This vote will be closed in 72 hours. For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html The following text is quoted from the above url: Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release manager. Kind Regards, Jacopo
Re: Proposal to slightly change the naming convention for releases
+1 Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc On Feb 21, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: I agree that this would be clearer for users, now that we release more often Jacques From: Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com Hi all, I would like to propose a small change to the way we name releases, specifically the first release in a branch. The current naming convention is the following: a) the name of the release branch is apache-ofbiz-YY.MM where YY.MM is the year and month of when the branch was created b) all releases coming out from a branch have the major release number equal to the branch's YY.MM c) the first release in the branch doesn't have a minor release number; the name of the first release is then: apache-ofbiz-YY.MM d) all subsequent releases (second, third etc...) have a sequential 2-digits minor release number (01, 02,...): the second release is apache-ofbiz-YY.MM.01, the third release is apache-ofbiz-YY.MM.02 etc... I would like to change the rules to be: a) the name of the release branch is apache-ofbiz-YY.MM where YY.MM is the year and month of when the branch was created b) all releases coming out from a branch have a major release number equal to the branch's YY.MM and a minor release number (sequential 2-digits): the first release is apache-ofbiz-YY.MM.01, the second release is apache-ofbiz-YY.MM.02 etc... We could start the adoption of the new naming convention with the upcoming (April?) first release in the 11.04 branch: instead of apache-ofbiz-11.04 it will be apache-ofbiz-11.04.01. What do you think? Jacopo
Re: svn commit: r1243116 - /ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/script/org/ofbiz/accounting/ledger/GeneralLedgerServices.xml
Jacques, This is a bug fix. The Service, createAcctgTransAndEntries should post entry to GlAccount associated with Party if there is one. Please see comment at line #502 when you get chance. My commit fixes this issue for sales invoice. I am sure there is similar bug in posting purchaseInvoice as well. I'll take a look at it sometime soon. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc On Feb 12, 2012, at 4:37 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Not really a problem for me (I don't see any risks) but this is not really a bug fix and I see backports in 10 and 11 versions ;o) Jacques From: apa...@apache.org Author: apatel Date: Sat Feb 11 18:30:25 2012 New Revision: 1243116 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1243116view=rev Log: Set partyId and roleTypeId for invoiced Party. This helps to figure out glAccount associated with Party. Modified: ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/script/org/ofbiz/accounting/ledger/GeneralLedgerServices.xml Modified: ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/script/org/ofbiz/accounting/ledger/GeneralLedgerServices.xml URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/script/org/ofbiz/accounting/ledger/GeneralLedgerServices.xml?rev=1243116r1=1243115r2=1243116view=diff == --- ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/script/org/ofbiz/accounting/ledger/GeneralLedgerServices.xml (original) +++ ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/script/org/ofbiz/accounting/ledger/GeneralLedgerServices.xml Sat Feb 11 18:30:25 2012 @@ -2321,6 +2321,8 @@ under the License. set field=createAcctgTransAndEntriesInMap.glFiscalTypeId value=ACTUAL/ set field=createAcctgTransAndEntriesInMap.acctgTransTypeId value=SALES_INVOICE/ set field=createAcctgTransAndEntriesInMap.invoiceId from-field=parameters.invoiceId/ +set field=createAcctgTransAndEntriesInMap.partyId from-field=invoice.partyId/ +set field=createAcctgTransAndEntriesInMap.roleTypeId value=BILL_TO_CUSTOMER/ set field=createAcctgTransAndEntriesInMap.acctgTransEntries from-field=acctgTransEntries/ set field=createAcctgTransAndEntriesInMap.transactionDate from-field=invoice.invoiceDate/ call-service service-name=createAcctgTransAndEntries in-map-name=createAcctgTransAndEntriesInMap
Re: Another Framework Vision
Jacques, I see that you mentioned few names and mine was in there as well, I am not feeling any bad or such. But wanted to say something. Its not that I don't have time to contribute to Ofbiz. There is different problem, There has been way too many difficult interaction on email lists, Also lots of those were cases where one person in the community was not ready to cooperate. As a company we have lost many hours of work and put in bad spot before customers because of bad code commits in trunk. IMO Ofbiz trunk gets way too many commits and not as much code review, testing, cooperative discussions. Finally we decided to start using 10.04 branch for all our work. It turned out good in a way. Not many other then our company seems to care much about it, in a sense it good. There is less code changes to keep eye on. But now that we are using 10.04, any code improvement/enhancement we make for our clients does not easily get contributed to Ofbiz because of additional effort required to forward port all that code and then discuss/argue with other committers. Good thing though, Ofbiz 10.04 branch, did get lots of bug fixes contributions from my coworkers, and is now very stable code base. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel On May 3, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: From: David E Jones d...@me.com On May 3, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: From: David E Jones d...@me.com On May 3, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Is that harsh and rude? Yep. Do I care any more? Nope. Those who call it harsh or rude or unfair... they are the ones who need to rise to the level of quality expected instead of asking me to compromise. I'm done with that. Yes maybe a more hierarchised organisation is better to reach some goals. This needs to be verified... Goal is the important word here... I'm not interested in an hierarchy, ie I don't want anyone under me that I'm responsible for and have to boss around. Even Moqui is an unpaid volunteer effort, just more tightly controlled and the meritocracy bar is intentionally set higher. I don't know that OFBiz would do better as an hierarchy, my opinion is that more free market forces are needed and to me that means multiple competing projects. Actually, this was almost a provocation, but I did not get totally your point of view as you explain below. What I meant is some parts could me managed by some persons. We saw that sometimes a consensus is not reached. Unfortunately, collegial decisions does not work in all cases. That's a fact, a lesson we learned. So I sadly believe we (the community) definitively and ultimately need a justice of the peace. A person who makes the decision in last resort. Someone Karl Fogel called a benevolent dictator http://markmail.org/message/euy7qz47u3sjwjvm. That's what we missed those last times and Jacopo sort of complained about. On the other hand we know things are not as simple as that: there are other means which influence the decisions: blackmail, etc. This said, and to make things clear, it's about OFBiz community, not about what you are proposing with Moqui which is more decentralized and entrepreneurs oriented. Yes, the questions with OFBiz is what will the future look like. If OFBiz moves toward being based on Moqui, and fitting into an ecosystem of projects instead of being an all-in-one project, what will be the new scope of Apache OFBiz? Should OFBiz be an ERP meant to be used as-is? If so, what size of business and sort of industry should it target? Alternatively, should it be a system that is meant to be customized and not used as-is (which was actually my original vision for OFBiz, though I know many have different visions and goals for the project)? Could OFBiz just be a base ERP system meant to be extended in other projects, but is usable OOTB as well? This might be a good topic for a separate thread... Yes, for another day... I think most people use OFBiz as a template for their own system. It contains now almost all what it's needed for a web application project to be based on: there are tons of good (and not as good) examples... Perhaps even for you Jacques a more distributed ecosystem of projects might even be better. If you could work on anything you wanted, what would it be? What is your greatest strength and area of experience and could a project based on that exist (perhaps working with others, if you want)? I have to thing about it. I really enjoyed the work we did with Sascha, last year. For the moment I just enjoy doing nothing, but I mean really NOTHING :D I hear you on this. One of my favorite movies is Office Space, partly because of the main character's Dream of Doing Nothing. One of his lines in response to being asked what he did over a weekend was something like I did nothing, and it was everything I always thought it would be. Sometimes it's necessary to do nothing
Re: [jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-1441) Enhance the integration with eBay
Two months ago we did the analysis and then fixed up few things in ebaystore component. It is feature rich and has almost everything that ebay component has. There is ebaystore has some dependency on ebay component so we cannot simply delete it. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Mar 29, 2011, at 10:50 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: no not really and (we) do not have time in the next few weeks. sorry, but cannot change that. Regards, Hans On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 08:38 +0200, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Hi Hans, I believe you are pretty busy, did you get a chance to have a look at this? Thanks Jacques From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Thanks Marco, We know more things now, we will wait Hans... Jacques risali...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jacques, the initial eBay component was created by me in 2007 and it was possible only to create auction an import an order into OFBiz. After that a lot of improvements has been done by Hans so probably he is the best person who can help us if it's ok that those two components need to be distinct (because they made different things) or only one must be active and the other can be deleted. Otherwise need to be investigated to understand what they are doing but I'm busy with other things and I would like to continue to work on that. Hoping it can helps. Thanks Marco Il giorno 22/gen/2011, alle ore 00.24, Jacques Le Roux (JIRA) ha scritto: [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1441?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12984995#action_12984995 ] Jacques Le Roux commented on OFBIZ-1441: Hi Marco, Have you looked at the ercetly updated ebay store, do you think we still to have them both? Thanks Enhance the integration with eBay - Key: OFBIZ-1441 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1441 Project: OFBiz Issue Type: New Feature Components: order, product Affects Versions: SVN trunk Environment: mac os Reporter: Marco Risaliti Assignee: Marco Risaliti Priority: Minor Fix For: SVN trunk Attachments: ebay.patch, ebay.zip Move the eBay export (auctions creation), currently in the product component, and import (of orders) stuff, currently in the order component, into a new specialpurpose component. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. -- Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
Re: svn commit: r1071517 - in /ofbiz/trunk/applications: accounting/config/ accounting/servicedef/ accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/payment/ accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/thirdparty/cybersour
Its interesting how serious issues are getting handled, In last two weeks I have seen interesting comments by same person, see See, http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ofbiz-dev/201102.mbox/%3C1296861866.2554.9.camel@hans-laptop%3E http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Re-svn-commit-r1068279-1-2-in-ofbiz-trunk-applications-order-entitydef-order-script-org-ofbiz-order--td3275530.html#a3276070 There are few others. Is contribution so important for Ofbiz community that they will ignore all these poor quality commits? Thanks and Regards Anil Patel On Feb 17, 2011, at 5:04 AM, Scott Gray wrote: That's really not good enough, but I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you. Regards Scott On 17/02/2011, at 11:00 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: no sorry Scott, this option is only for this payment method, other payment methods used: paypal, google. One could sure have this setting at a higher level, however still it needs an override at a lower level too. I am sorry, but this is all I can say and do not have more time to spend on this. Regards, Hans On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 22:52 +1300, Scott Gray wrote: But you're typically only using one payment processor per store right? So the store settings should be sufficient, but even if not this should really be solved in a more generic way with some sort of setting at a higher level. Also it looks like your using the deprecated payment.properties for configuration instead of the PaymentGatewayConfig entities. Regards Scott On 17/02/2011, at 10:28 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: This feature is not always for all paymentmethods for every order. Certain payment processors can be easily checked and approved afterwards with the payment processor while others do not have this feature. Regards, Hans On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 22:11 +1300, Scott Gray wrote: Hi Hans, Isn't that more of an order related setting rather than anything the payment gateway needs to worry about? Surely we already have processes for this sort of thing? Also, we're going to end up with a hell of a mess if we keep putting payment processor specific code in the order logic. Regards Scott On 17/02/2011, at 7:57 PM, hans...@apache.org wrote: Author: hansbak Date: Thu Feb 17 06:57:51 2011 New Revision: 1071517 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1071517view=rev Log: update to cybersource payment gateway: added a properties setting that orders are still accepted but put into the created stage when a credit card fails authorisation. The default is the current setting: order is not created Modified: ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/config/payment.properties ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/servicedef/services_paymentmethod.xml ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/payment/PaymentGatewayServices.java ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/src/org/ofbiz/accounting/thirdparty/cybersource/IcsPaymentServices.java ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/src/org/ofbiz/order/shoppingcart/CheckOutHelper.java Modified: ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/config/payment.properties URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/config/payment.properties?rev=1071517r1=1071516r2=1071517view=diff == --- ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/config/payment.properties (original) +++ ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/config/payment.properties Thu Feb 17 06:57:51 2011 @@ -118,6 +118,12 @@ payment.cybersource.ignoreAvs=false # AVS Decline Codes -- May not be supported any longer #payment.cybersource.avsDeclineCodes= +# Ignore status of cybersource transaction reply (Y|N) (if cybersource response transaction status not equals ACCEPT then OFBiz will still create the order but in status 'created'. +# default N = Don't create order if cybersource reported transaction status not equals ACCEPT. +payment.cybersource.ignoreStatus=N +# It happens pretty often that a creditcard is rejected for not valid reasons, one can check to Cybersource fraud queue and after that the order can still be rejected or approved. + + # ClearCommerce Configuration Modified: ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/servicedef/services_paymentmethod.xml URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/servicedef/services_paymentmethod.xml?rev=1071517r1=1071516r2=1071517view=diff == --- ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/servicedef/services_paymentmethod.xml (original) +++ ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/servicedef/services_paymentmethod.xml Thu Feb 17 06:57:51 2011 @@ -267,6 +267,7 @@ under the License. attribute name=errors type=Boolean mode=OUT optional=false/ attribute name=messages
Re: ebay vs ebay store
eBay Store (newer component) has more features then eBay (old component). I think community can safely discard old eBay component. Do we really in comparison chart? Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jan 21, 2011, at 11:29 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Hi, I have already asked this question, but does somebody knows why we have ebay and ebay store components? What are the key diffs between them? Thanks Jacques
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 09.04.01
+1 Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jan 20, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: This is the vote thread to release a bug fix release for the 09.04 branch. This bug fix release and will supersede the release Apache OFBiz 09.04 and will be released as Apache OFBiz 09.04.01. The files can be downloaded from here: http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ (please help to test the zip file and its signatures). Vote: [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 09.04.01 [ -1] do not release For more details about this process please read this http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html Kind Regards, Jacopo
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 10.04
+1 Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jan 14, 2011, at 6:34 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: This is the vote thread to transform our release candidate 10.04 into an official release. This will be the first release of the 10.04 series (that contains the features up to 2010-04). The files can be downloaded from here: http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ Vote: [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 10.04 [ -1] do not release For more details about this process please read this http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html Kind Regards, Jacopo
Re: jquey
Hans, On other thread Jacques indicated that work of migrating to JQuery is complete. Do you think, it will be good idea to merge JQuery branch with trunk quickly so you can add additional features much more easily? Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Dec 1, 2010, at 10:21 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: We have a number of new ofbiz features lined up, however they use jquery... is it possble to add the jquery libraries earlier then waiting for the merge of the jquery branch? -- Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
Re: buildbot failure in ASF Buildbot on ofbiz-trunk
I see it now, Will investigate and fix it. Looks like my recent fixes broke some wrongly written tests, if I am lucky :) Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Sep 27, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: From: BJ Freeman bjf...@free-man.net saw it. figure aptel would fix it. apparently does not monitor the build ml. It's send on dev ML, not a big deal, just test issue Jacques Build Reason: Build Source Stamp: [branch ofbiz/trunk] 1001574 Blamelist: apatel Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 9/27/2010 10:51 AM: Anybody cares? Jacques From: build...@apache.org To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 4:56 AM Subject: buildbot failure in ASF Buildbot on ofbiz-trunk The Buildbot has detected a new failure of ofbiz-trunk on ASF Buildbot. Full details are available at: http://ci.apache.org/builders/ofbiz-trunk/builds/572 Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/ Buildslave for this Build: isis_ubuntu Build Reason: Build Source Stamp: [branch ofbiz/trunk] 1001574 Blamelist: apatel BUILD FAILED: failed compile_1 sincerely, -The Buildbot
Re: buildbot failure in ASF Buildbot on ofbiz-trunk
My most recent fix in services also fixed failing test. We should be good now. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Sep 27, 2010, at 7:08 PM, Anil Patel wrote: I see it now, Will investigate and fix it. Looks like my recent fixes broke some wrongly written tests, if I am lucky :) Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Sep 27, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: From: BJ Freeman bjf...@free-man.net saw it. figure aptel would fix it. apparently does not monitor the build ml. It's send on dev ML, not a big deal, just test issue Jacques Build Reason: Build Source Stamp: [branch ofbiz/trunk] 1001574 Blamelist: apatel Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 9/27/2010 10:51 AM: Anybody cares? Jacques From: build...@apache.org To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 4:56 AM Subject: buildbot failure in ASF Buildbot on ofbiz-trunk The Buildbot has detected a new failure of ofbiz-trunk on ASF Buildbot. Full details are available at: http://ci.apache.org/builders/ofbiz-trunk/builds/572 Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/ Buildslave for this Build: isis_ubuntu Build Reason: Build Source Stamp: [branch ofbiz/trunk] 1001574 Blamelist: apatel BUILD FAILED: failed compile_1 sincerely, -The Buildbot
Create Release from 10.04 release branch
Hi, Ofbiz release branch 10.04 has been around for quite sometime now. It seems to be quite stable. Is there enough interest in community for creating a official release? Other option might be, we discard 10.04 and create new release branch, may be 10.07? Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz
Re: svn commit: r959673 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/src/org/ofbiz/common/CommonWorkers.java
I have complete something similar using javascript. Here is good description
and example
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com/apache-ofbiz-blog/ofbiz-tutorial-dependent-selects-for-prototype/
I am using it for Country/State lists.
Thanks and Regards
Anil Patel
HotWax Media Inc
Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz
On Jul 1, 2010, at 7:47 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
To be clear, I'd like to introduce a dependent dropdows mechanism in widgets.
I'm quite sure it's not easy, not sure it's even feasible at this stage...
Jacques
From: jler...@apache.org
Author: jleroux
Date: Thu Jul 1 14:05:21 2010
New Revision: 959673
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=959673view=rev
Log:
Adds a getAssociatedProductsList method. I will certainly add the companions
service and request later in the Product application.
I have also the vague desire to generalize this more, as I have been able to
quickly use it in a widget form following the
Freemarker way already used.
Modified:
ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/src/org/ofbiz/common/CommonWorkers.java
Modified:
ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/src/org/ofbiz/common/CommonWorkers.java
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/src/org/ofbiz/common/CommonWorkers.java?rev=959673r1=959672r2=959673view=diff
==
--- ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/src/org/ofbiz/common/CommonWorkers.java
(original)
+++ ofbiz/trunk/framework/common/src/org/ofbiz/common/CommonWorkers.java Thu
Jul 1 14:05:21 2010
@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ import org.ofbiz.entity.GenericValue;
import org.ofbiz.entity.condition.EntityCondition;
import org.ofbiz.entity.condition.EntityExpr;
import org.ofbiz.entity.condition.EntityOperator;
+import org.ofbiz.entity.util.EntityUtil;
/**
* Common Workers
@@ -135,6 +136,35 @@ public class CommonWorkers {
return geoList;
}
+public static ListGenericValue getAssociatedProductsList(Delegator
delegator, String productCategoryId) {
+return getAssociatedProductsList(delegator, productCategoryId,
null);
+}
+
+/**
+ * Returns a list of active related products for a product category
+ */
+public static ListGenericValue getAssociatedProductsList(Delegator
delegator, String productCategoryId, String listOrderBy)
{
+ListGenericValue products = FastList.newInstance();
+if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(productCategoryId)) {
+EntityCondition productsFindCond =
EntityCondition.makeCondition(
+EntityCondition.makeCondition(productCategoryId,
productCategoryId));
+
+if (UtilValidate.isEmpty(listOrderBy)) {
+listOrderBy = sequenceNum;
+}
+ListString sortList = UtilMisc.toList(listOrderBy);
+
+try {
+products = delegator.findList(ProductCategoryMember,
productsFindCond, null, sortList, null, true);
+products = EntityUtil.filterByDate(products);
+} catch (GenericEntityException e) {
+Debug.logError(e, Cannot lookup ProductCategoryMember,
module);
+}
+}
+
+return products;
+}
+
/**
* A generic method to be used on Type enities, e.g. ProductType.
Recurse to the root level in the type hierarchy
* and checks if the specified type childType has parentType as its
parent somewhere in the hierarchy.
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
This is line with I said earlier. We should instead use jquery. And to some extend we need to be ready to help those community to build and maintain tools that help us. I will prefer jquery over dojo. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 8, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Sascha Rodekamp sascha.rodekamp.lynx...@googlemail.com wrote: Hey guys, i started the work to update the Dojo libary to the current version 1.4. And i have to say that it didn't satisfy me to work on every Dojo based JaveScript for a little version update. It will coast a lot of time to test and update all the JavaScript Code. And what we have at the end a new heavy Dojo libary which brings a lot of widget but it's hard to extend :-) So i have another (maybe better idea). Why we didn't set Dojo and Prototype as depricated and starting to use jQuerry. In my optinion jQuerry is a better invest in the future. There are a lot of Widget/ Plugin's too and it's much lighter than Dojo. Instead of spending my time with updating all the Dojo stuff, i could spend my time to migrate all Prototype / Dojo based Code to jQuerry. What do you think? Cheers Sascha 2010/6/5 Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Looks like good plan. Overtime people might choose to replace prototype framework with similar thing from Dojo. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 5, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: So far I have mostly used Dojo for its tree in a CMS tool, and some Prototype functions notably for layered lookups. I still see them as complementary (Dojo coming more complete but heavier, Prototype being mostly an API). I does do think it's necessary to make a choice. Jacques From: Adrian Crum adrian.c...@yahoo.com From what I recall, the two libraries were included in the project with the idea that the most popular one would get used. At the time, Dojo was a very heavy library and the first attempts to use it resulted in very slow page loads. I used Prototype in some initial Ajax work - mainly because it was pretty easy to use. Today, I have no preference for either one. -Adrian --- On Sat, 6/5/10, Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: From: Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Subject: Re: Dojo tree 1.4 To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Cc: Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Date: Saturday, June 5, 2010, 7:00 AM I started using Dojo in Ofbiz long back and in six months because of issues faced we switched to using prototype. At that time there were few others in comunity who liked prototype better. But I really don't remember the reasons. Since then new checkout process was added that uses prototype for all javascript needs. But did not remove Dojo because i did not want to upset anybody in community. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 5, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: I have created a branch http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/dojo1.4 Nothing else for now Jacques From: Sascha Rodekamp sascha.rodekamp.lynx...@googlemail.com Hi Jacques ... jep it's a lot of work but not impossible :) A brunch is a good idea to start working on this project. I think the reason for Antil was, that he isn't use to Dojo. But that shouldn't be a problem the syntax isn't complicated. And by the way, if this will work the new Dojo will bring us a big benefit (in my opinion). Cheers Sascha 2010/6/5 Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Sascha, We should rather use the dev ML for this thread. Maybe it's the reason why Anil was reluctant to use Dojo? Jacques Jacques Le Roux wrote: Sascha Rodekamp wrote: Hey, so i started upgrading to dojo 1.4. The good point is ... Dojo 1.4 has many really cool new Features which can help us to improve the UI. The Bad thing is, some parts of the syntax had changed. That effects many parts in OFBiz (OnePageCheckout, Trees, all Dojo features Scripts :-)). Arg, I did not thought it will be so much trouble :/ So that's a lot of work and i can't do it on my own ... who volunteer to help me ;) ?? I could help First Step is to collect all depending issues and than to fix them step by step. So if we do that we need a branch I guess... Jacques Have a nice day Sascha -- http://www.lynx.de -- http://www.lynx.de
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
I started using Dojo in Ofbiz long back and in six months because of issues faced we switched to using prototype. At that time there were few others in comunity who liked prototype better. But I really don't remember the reasons. Since then new checkout process was added that uses prototype for all javascript needs. But did not remove Dojo because i did not want to upset anybody in community. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 5, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: I have created a branch http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/dojo1.4 Nothing else for now Jacques From: Sascha Rodekamp sascha.rodekamp.lynx...@googlemail.com Hi Jacques ... jep it's a lot of work but not impossible :) A brunch is a good idea to start working on this project. I think the reason for Antil was, that he isn't use to Dojo. But that shouldn't be a problem the syntax isn't complicated. And by the way, if this will work the new Dojo will bring us a big benefit (in my opinion). Cheers Sascha 2010/6/5 Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Sascha, We should rather use the dev ML for this thread. Maybe it's the reason why Anil was reluctant to use Dojo? Jacques Jacques Le Roux wrote: Sascha Rodekamp wrote: Hey, so i started upgrading to dojo 1.4. The good point is ... Dojo 1.4 has many really cool new Features which can help us to improve the UI. The Bad thing is, some parts of the syntax had changed. That effects many parts in OFBiz (OnePageCheckout, Trees, all Dojo features Scripts :-)). Arg, I did not thought it will be so much trouble :/ So that's a lot of work and i can't do it on my own ... who volunteer to help me ;) ?? I could help First Step is to collect all depending issues and than to fix them step by step. So if we do that we need a branch I guess... Jacques Have a nice day Sascha -- http://www.lynx.de
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
Looks like good plan. Overtime people might choose to replace prototype framework with similar thing from Dojo. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 5, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: So far I have mostly used Dojo for its tree in a CMS tool, and some Prototype functions notably for layered lookups. I still see them as complementary (Dojo coming more complete but heavier, Prototype being mostly an API). I does do think it's necessary to make a choice. Jacques From: Adrian Crum adrian.c...@yahoo.com From what I recall, the two libraries were included in the project with the idea that the most popular one would get used. At the time, Dojo was a very heavy library and the first attempts to use it resulted in very slow page loads. I used Prototype in some initial Ajax work - mainly because it was pretty easy to use. Today, I have no preference for either one. -Adrian --- On Sat, 6/5/10, Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: From: Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Subject: Re: Dojo tree 1.4 To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Cc: Anil Patel anil.pa...@hotwaxmedia.com Date: Saturday, June 5, 2010, 7:00 AM I started using Dojo in Ofbiz long back and in six months because of issues faced we switched to using prototype. At that time there were few others in comunity who liked prototype better. But I really don't remember the reasons. Since then new checkout process was added that uses prototype for all javascript needs. But did not remove Dojo because i did not want to upset anybody in community. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 5, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: I have created a branch http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/branches/dojo1.4 Nothing else for now Jacques From: Sascha Rodekamp sascha.rodekamp.lynx...@googlemail.com Hi Jacques ... jep it's a lot of work but not impossible :) A brunch is a good idea to start working on this project. I think the reason for Antil was, that he isn't use to Dojo. But that shouldn't be a problem the syntax isn't complicated. And by the way, if this will work the new Dojo will bring us a big benefit (in my opinion). Cheers Sascha 2010/6/5 Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Sascha, We should rather use the dev ML for this thread. Maybe it's the reason why Anil was reluctant to use Dojo? Jacques Jacques Le Roux wrote: Sascha Rodekamp wrote: Hey, so i started upgrading to dojo 1.4. The good point is ... Dojo 1.4 has many really cool new Features which can help us to improve the UI. The Bad thing is, some parts of the syntax had changed. That effects many parts in OFBiz (OnePageCheckout, Trees, all Dojo features Scripts :-)). Arg, I did not thought it will be so much trouble :/ So that's a lot of work and i can't do it on my own ... who volunteer to help me ;) ?? I could help First Step is to collect all depending issues and than to fix them step by step. So if we do that we need a branch I guess... Jacques Have a nice day Sascha -- http://www.lynx.de
Re: Dojo tree 1.4
I have mixed feelings. IMO we should use prototype (prototype based UI components), and not use Dojo. If we are really not happy with UI plugins in prototype then I'll personally prefer JQuery over Dojo for sure. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Jun 1, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Forwarded again :( This time I removed the links and replaced them by tinylinks Jacques - Original Message - From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 2:10 PM Subject: Fw: Dojo tree 1.4 Forwarding, not sure why this did not get through, maybe the links... Jacques - Original Message - From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 9:03 AM Subject: Dojo tree 1.4 Hi, I was discussing with Ankit and Sascha (who, I'm sure you know, greatly helped with Atul on the layered lookups) about new things to improve in the UI. They were interested by the tree and reported this link http://tinyurl.com/38xrxd5 We have already first fruits at http://tinyurl.com/3axfg75 but we use an older (1.2?) version of Dojo and we need 1.4 for new stuff like different icons on each node, dragdrop, etc. see http://tinyurl.com/37srt6k and you may look for more in pages (I searched only in title) Unfortunately this is not only code enhancement as the 1.4 works a bit differently than previous one for trees. So the code related to the OFBiz link above needs a bit of revamping. This message to let you know that there will be an effort on the Dojo tree, because I know some don't like to have many js libs in OFBiz. So if you feel we should do otherwise please speak... For me it's not a problem to have Prototype and Dojo as long as they don't collide. Jacques
Re: svn commit: r946100 - in /ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/widget/ordermgr: CommonScreens.xml QuoteScreens.xml
I think this commit and r946105, 946108 should be applied to 10.04 as well. These commits have no functional changes. They fix permission check and decorator screen location issues. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On May 19, 2010, at 6:04 AM, m...@apache.org wrote: Author: mor Date: Wed May 19 10:04:17 2010 New Revision: 946100 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=946100view=rev Log: Removed an unnecessary decorator screen CommonQuotePriceDecorator related to Order Manager Quotes. The only difference between this and screen CommonQuoteDecorator is that the the former has a permission check for ORDERMGR__QUOTE_PRICE where as latter has a check for permission ORDERMGR_VIEW. The permission ORDERMGR_QUOTE_PRICE is though already checked at menu level and hence is not required explicity at the decorator level. Modified: ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/widget/ordermgr/CommonScreens.xml ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/widget/ordermgr/QuoteScreens.xml
Re: svn commit: r941139 - /ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/menu/MenuWrapTransform.java
Makes sense
+1
Thanks and Regards
Anil Patel
HotWax Media Inc
Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz
On May 5, 2010, at 1:10 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Time to look at a JackRabbit integration?
;-)
-Adrian
--- On Tue, 5/4/10, lekt...@apache.org lekt...@apache.org wrote:
From: lekt...@apache.org lekt...@apache.org
Subject: svn commit: r941139 -
/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/menu/MenuWrapTransform.java
To: comm...@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Tuesday, May 4, 2010, 7:25 PM
Author: lektran
Date: Wed May 5 02:25:26 2010
New Revision: 941139
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=941139view=rev
Log:
Put the null check a little higher so that it actually does
the check before an NPE can occur. Giving up on this
transform, I hate the content component.
Modified:
ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/menu/MenuWrapTransform.java
Modified:
ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/menu/MenuWrapTransform.java
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/menu/MenuWrapTransform.java?rev=941139r1=941138r2=941139view=diff
==
---
ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/menu/MenuWrapTransform.java
(original)
+++
ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/widget/menu/MenuWrapTransform.java
Wed May 5 02:25:26 2010
@@ -182,13 +182,15 @@ public class MenuWrapTransform
implement
String menuName =
(String)templateCtx.get(menuName);
String menuWrapperClassName =
(String)templateCtx.get(menuWrapperClassName);
HtmlMenuWrapper menuWrapper =
HtmlMenuWrapper.getMenuWrapper(request, response, session,
menuDefFile, menuName, menuWrapperClassName);
-
String associatedContentId =
(String)templateCtx.get(associatedContentId);
-
menuWrapper.putInContext(defaultAssociatedContentId,
associatedContentId);
-
menuWrapper.putInContext(currentValue, view);
if (menuWrapper == null) {
throw new
IOException(HtmlMenuWrapper with def file: + menuDefFile +
menuName: + menuName + and HtmlMenuWrapper class: +
menuWrapperClassName + could not be instantiated.);
}
+
+
String associatedContentId =
(String)templateCtx.get(associatedContentId);
+
menuWrapper.putInContext(defaultAssociatedContentId,
associatedContentId);
+
menuWrapper.putInContext(currentValue, view);
+
String menuStr =
menuWrapper.renderMenuString();
out.write(menuStr);
}
Re: New branch is now available for upcoming releases of 10.04 series
Keep asking, If there are enough reason, we may come up with some policy that allows for it. Or may be we create one more release branch as soon as in next two months and kill this branch in its alpha stage itself. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On May 1, 2010, at 5:16 AM, chris snow wrote: It would be good if we could backport the field tooltip messages too. Many thanks, chris On 1 May 2010 09:59, Vikas Mayur vikasma...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Jacopo for all of your hard work to make it happen. Btw I am not sure if this is a good question to you (and others of course) about commit policy to the release branch. We all know that the main idea behind the release branch is to provide a more stable version of OFBiz. I was just wondering if we could also change the commit policy to back port unit test besides bug fixes. This way there would be more code coverage with the additional unit tests resulted by backporting to the release branch. I am sorry if this has been already discussed in past. Regards Vikas On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: ...
Re: New branch is now available for upcoming releases of 10.04 series
Maintaining patches is another big job. We've done that, it gets difficult over time. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On May 1, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Hi Bruno, I had setup https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3743 for tooltip help related patches - is this what you were thinking? Many thanks, Chris On 01/05/10 18:26, Bruno Busco wrote: Chris, what we coud do to with this feature is to maintain a patch for the 10.04 in a specific JIRA. This would allow everybody (including me) to apply the patch on 10.04 releases. -Bruno 2010/5/1 chris snowchsnow...@googlemail.com It would be good if we could backport the field tooltip messages too. Many thanks, chris On 1 May 2010 09:59, Vikas Mayurvikasma...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Jacopo for all of your hard work to make it happen. Btw I am not sure if this is a good question to you (and others of course) about commit policy to the release branch. We all know that the main idea behind the release branch is to provide a more stable version of OFBiz. I was just wondering if we could also change the commit policy to back port unit test besides bug fixes. This way there would be more code coverage with the additional unit tests resulted by backporting to the release branch. I am sorry if this has been already discussed in past. Regards Vikas On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: ...
Re: [VOTE] [BRANCH] Creation of the Release Branch release10.04
+1 Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Apr 28, 2010, at 4:10 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: This is the vote thread to create a new release branch (not a release yet) named release10.04. This branch will represent a feature freeze and releases will be created over time out of it: all the commits in this branch will be for bug fixes only, no new features. Vote: [ +1] create the branch release10.04 [ -1] do not create the branch We will use the same rules for votes on releases (vote passes if there are more binding +1 than -1 and if there are at least 3 binding +1) For more details about this process please read this http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html Kind Regards, Jacopo
Re: Security Redesign and Release 10.x Branch
Do we finally have plan for What all stuff we want to complete before release branch 10.04 is created? From what I understand community will like to get following done 1) Merge security redesign work into trunk. 2) Layered lookup work finished, This looks be to complete, is that true? Do we want to wait till April 30th or create branch sooner? Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Apr 13, 2010, at 1:36 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: From: Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@gmail.com On Apr 13, 2010, at 5:54 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: Jacopo Cappellato wrote: On Apr 13, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: Scott Gray wrote: On 13/04/2010, at 10:21 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: On Apr 13, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Scott Gray wrote: On 13/04/2010, at 9:36 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: On Apr 13, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Scott Gray wrote: Hi Jacopo, What exactly does it mean to create an alpha release, compared to what we have now where we create a release branch? It fundamentally means that we can distribute it outside of the inner group of contributors because the we can guarantee that it is full compliant with ASF license requirements. Ah okay I see what you mean and that sounds fine to me. I'm not entirely clear on the version numbering though, 10.04a, 10.04b, 10.04 (this is the stable one), 10.04.1 (post stable bug fix release?) Numbering is an interesting point because it is difficult to state what is stable from what is not; in your example, of course 10.04a is not stable; however what makes 10.04 stable? In fact it is less stable than 10.04.1. I don't know, if we are concerned about clarifying what we consider stable we could follow the following strategy: adding the prefix alpha- to all the releases we feel like should not be considered stable. For example: alpha-10.04.a alpha-10.04.b Then when we feel we can consider the release stable: 10.04 (first stable release on 10.04) 10.04.1 (latest current stable release on 10.04) or even: stable-10.04 stable-10.04.1 Even if it could be simpler to just start from 10.04.1 since the first alpha release and then continue increasing the suffix: alpha-10.04.1 alpha-10.04.2 stable-10.04.3 stable-10.04.4 but I understand that this is less appealing (i.e. the stable release will start with 10.04.3) I don't think we're limited to the version name when it comes to describing each release, the download page and perhaps a README file can help as well. How about: 10.04-alpha-1 10.04-alpha-2 10.04 10.04.1 10.04.2 ? Or what other ASF projects do: 10.04-RC1 10.04-RC2 10.04 10.04.1 10.04.2 -Adrian I would prefer to avoid the RC (Release Candidate) suffix because it could be confusing since it is actually a real release, even if not intended to be used in production. I guess everyone has their preference. Not using the RC suffix seems more confusing to me. ;-) HTTPD and Tomcat use a lot alpha and beta releases http://archive.apache.org/dist/httpd/ http://archive.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-6/ I think that RC is used more in branches and tags (for release candidates actually). Jacopo Then looks like beta alpha are better terms (I quickly plussed because I thought it was the Apache way) Though I still wonder if we will not been even more considered as a technical framework, than as a ready to use ERP, with this numbering. In my mind, the less the best, but yes maybe we will benefit better feedback from some major contributors. At least it's worth to try. Jacques
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 4.0
+1 Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Apr 20, 2010, at 2:36 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: This is the vote thread to transform our release candidate 4.0 into an official ASF release. OFBiz 4.0 is an *old* release that will be archived (and removed from the ASF mirrors) right after it will be released: we are doing this vote/process just to be able to call it an official ASF release. We will not promote this release and people should not really use it and should prefer our latest stable release 09.04. The voting period will be approx (no less than) 72 hours. The files can be downloaded from here: http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ Vote: [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 4.0 [ -1] do not release For more details about this process please read this http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html Kind Regards, Jacopo
Re: Proposal for further cleanups of the OFBiz main page
+1 Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Apr 9, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: +1 Jacques From: Ashish Vijaywargiya vijaywargiya.ash...@gmail.com Looks good Jacopo. +1. -- Ashish On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@gmail.com wrote: Please, let me know what do you think of the following change. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3665 Kind regards, Jacopo
Re: Security Redesign and Release 10.x Branch
Looks like, none who participated in this thread have objections for merging of securitycontext20091231 branch with trunk. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Apr 7, 2010, at 7:46 PM, Scott Gray wrote: Well I don't see any problem with dropping it in right now then. The real question will be what do people want to be able to backport once the release branch is created. Regards Scott On 7/04/2010, at 5:35 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: The security redesign implementation itself is mostly finished. There are a few TODOs and they can be found in the BranchReadMe.txt file. I recently synchronized the branch with the trunk and there is a remote chance something in the design might have broken in the process. I need to run some tests and review the code to see if that happened. The Example component has been switched over to the new design. There is a user login called artifact-user that demonstrates the new design. That user login is restricted to using the Example component. If the branch was merged back to the trunk and the new security design was enabled, the Example component would use the new design and the remaining components would still use the current security design. The two can co-exist. I imagine the process after that would be similar to when we introduced the permission checking services - contributors can contribute code that converts parts of the project over to the new security design. Conversion involves removing hard-coded permission checks and creating seed data to grant permission to component artifacts. As I mentioned before, switching a component over to the new design can create some unexpected problems. That's because our existing code has security holes in it, and the new design plugs those holes - making parts of the component unreachable. In other words, parts of code that happily allow you to do things you don't have permission to do will start to throw exceptions in the new design. -Adrian Scott Gray wrote: Question: What exactly is the current status of the execution branch? What is it that needs to be done for it to be enabled in the trunk? I'm sorry if you feel you've already answered that question but I'm afraid it still isn't entirely clear to me. Regards Scott On 7/04/2010, at 5:14 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: If we wait, then we're waiting for evaluation and testing of the branch. I've done all I can do - the code is written, I suggested we do the merge before the release branch, and I gave my reasons for suggesting it. At this point in time I have stepped out of the discussion (in a positive way) to give others a chance to look at the design and the code and decide for themselves if it should be included. In other words, I don't want to be in a position where I have to convince the community what it should do. If the design and the implementation are good, then there will be no need to convince anyone, right? I'll answer questions about the executioncontext branch, and I'll continue to work on it here and there when I have the time. If the release branch is created without it, then that will be fine with me. :-) -Adrian Scott Gray wrote: Considering we have yet to do an official release after 3.5 years and the lack of user interest in our release branches (partly because we recommend the trunk to everybody), I think it would be a waste of time and effort to create more than one release branch per year. If we want the security branch in there then lets wait, there is no good reason for us to release this month, it's just an arbitrary date. HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 7/04/2010, at 12:07 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: I would suggest to: 1) release 10.04 before the merge is done 2) merge the code to the trunk, switch to it, fix any possible issue 3) do another release (10.06?) I know this is not inline with what we currently think a release should be, but this is very inline with what the ASF practices and so I will continue to insist with the release-often practice. :-) Jacopo On Apr 4, 2010, at 8:21 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: I would like to start bringing parts of the executioncontext20091231 branch into the trunk before we create the next release branch. The implementation of the new security design is not finished, but it will be disabled - so everything will still work the same. My goal is to allow users of the 10.x release to plan for the forthcoming changes, and maybe have the conversion to the new design completed by the release that follows 10.x. I will wait a few days, and if there are no objections I will begin merging the design into the trunk. -Adrian
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 09.04
+1 Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Apr 8, 2010, at 6:27 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: This is the vote thread to transform our release candidate 09.04 into an official release. The files can be downloaded from here: http://people.apache.org/~jacopoc/dist/ Vote: [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 09.04 [ -1] do not release For more details about this process please read this http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html Kind Regards, Jacopo
Re: Security Redesign and Release 10.x Branch
This makes sense to me. Isn't this similar to what Eclipse does, RC1 ,RC2 Finally RC 6 becomes final release. Then final release is maintained. So we can do RC10.04, RC10.06, and at some point RC10.06 is stable to be released. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Apr 7, 2010, at 2:07 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: I would suggest to: 1) release 10.04 before the merge is done 2) merge the code to the trunk, switch to it, fix any possible issue 3) do another release (10.06?) I know this is not inline with what we currently think a release should be, but this is very inline with what the ASF practices and so I will continue to insist with the release-often practice. :-) Jacopo On Apr 4, 2010, at 8:21 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: I would like to start bringing parts of the executioncontext20091231 branch into the trunk before we create the next release branch. The implementation of the new security design is not finished, but it will be disabled - so everything will still work the same. My goal is to allow users of the 10.x release to plan for the forthcoming changes, and maybe have the conversion to the new design completed by the release that follows 10.x. I will wait a few days, and if there are no objections I will begin merging the design into the trunk. -Adrian
Re: Security Redesign and Release 10.x Branch
Like it. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Apr 7, 2010, at 2:19 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: On Apr 7, 2010, at 8:14 AM, Anil Patel wrote: This makes sense to me. Isn't this similar to what Eclipse does, RC1 ,RC2 Finally RC 6 becomes final release. Then final release is maintained. So we can do RC10.04, RC10.06, and at some point RC10.06 is stable to be released. Yes, this is good, even if for ASF they will all be official releases (no RC): but 10.04, 10.6 will be alpha (or similar) releases and 10.06 will be a stable release. Even if, and I always insist on this, only the community, with the contributions coming from users of the stable release, will decide if the stable release will be maintained: this cannot be a responsibility of committers. Jacopo Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Apr 7, 2010, at 2:07 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: I would suggest to: 1) release 10.04 before the merge is done 2) merge the code to the trunk, switch to it, fix any possible issue 3) do another release (10.06?) I know this is not inline with what we currently think a release should be, but this is very inline with what the ASF practices and so I will continue to insist with the release-often practice. :-) Jacopo On Apr 4, 2010, at 8:21 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: I would like to start bringing parts of the executioncontext20091231 branch into the trunk before we create the next release branch. The implementation of the new security design is not finished, but it will be disabled - so everything will still work the same. My goal is to allow users of the 10.x release to plan for the forthcoming changes, and maybe have the conversion to the new design completed by the release that follows 10.x. I will wait a few days, and if there are no objections I will begin merging the design into the trunk. -Adrian
Re: Security Redesign and Release 10.x Branch
I browsed through Ubuntu site a bit, Here are few interesting page https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/ReleaseProcess https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KarmicReleaseSchedule They work on a release branch for about 6 months. During this time they test and enhance code base and finally release it. Applying this to Ofbiz: 1) Create a release branch 2) Agree on list of features that will be allowed to be back ported from ofbiz trunk to ofbiz release branch. 3) When release branch is stable, release it. This process can last for 6 months. We will have road map for what's going to happen in those 6 months. People will know what all features will be part of upcoming release and so whoever is interested on those features will help complete them. Once released, it will only get bug fixes and no enhancements. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Apr 7, 2010, at 3:54 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Then, why not simply report the 10.04 to 10.06 (or 10.05), like Ubuntu did for 6.06 (which should have been 6.04 and have been rather reported for 2 months) I see 3 reasons: * Confusion, I'm quite sure we will have to answer much users who will ask about the differences. This is not a big issue, but I think it will increase users confusion which is never good. People and even more markets like stability and certainty (I'd say mental certainty, as it's not real certainty, but what is reality, science?) * Thanks to Ean's recent trends post http://www.google.com/trends?q=ofbizctab=0geo=alldate=allsort=0 I wonder if the most important marketing thing for us (not for the ASF) is not releasing. So if we make 2 relases in 2 months, the effect is watered down and as I said confusion increase. * We would like to include the layered lookups. Apart 2 minor issues they work well but when a calendar is called (it's hidden behind). The calendar issue is maybe not that big because Sascha already solved a such issue for lookups called from a lookup. But there is also another issue I found this weekend. We would want to make things as simple as possible for users. In order to do so, we decided that the layer would be the default. There is currently an issue with this also. I tracked it yesterday evening but did not have enough time to finish it yet. The 3rd reasons is maybe not a delay problem, and I also like the release often strategy. It's only that I get some Schizophrenia: as a developper I prefer the Apache way (release often strategy), but as a consultant I prefer the Ubuntu way. It's all about marketing, I let you think about that :o) Jacques From: Jacopo Cappellato jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com I would suggest to: 1) release 10.04 before the merge is done 2) merge the code to the trunk, switch to it, fix any possible issue 3) do another release (10.06?) I know this is not inline with what we currently think a release should be, but this is very inline with what the ASF practices and so I will continue to insist with the release-often practice. :-) Jacopo On Apr 4, 2010, at 8:21 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: I would like to start bringing parts of the executioncontext20091231 branch into the trunk before we create the next release branch. The implementation of the new security design is not finished, but it will be disabled - so everything will still work the same. My goal is to allow users of the 10.x release to plan for the forthcoming changes, and maybe have the conversion to the new design completed by the release that follows 10.x. I will wait a few days, and if there are no objections I will begin merging the design into the trunk. -Adrian
Re: Security Redesign and Release 10.x Branch
I am yet to see contents of BranchReadMe.txt. In case it has some todo that are not classified as bug fix but are instead classified as enhancements, I will like it better if we officially allowed back porting such code to release branch. Similarly, Jacques will like to get layered lookup part also included in release branch. Lets say if we allowed back porting of that feature as well. It will make him happy :) I also see it as major upgrade and will like to see it in release. If community does not officially do it, then I will have to create vendor branch in my private repository of community release branch anyway :) Other then this, Most of the code changes these days are in ofbiz trunk are at framework level. I am interested in branch so I get isolation from continues changes in framework. Most of those changes increase risk for delivery of project. I found myself in tough spot because of those and finally decide to not use trunk for projects. All these little things are my reason for pushing for release branch sooner then later. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Apr 7, 2010, at 7:46 PM, Scott Gray wrote: Well I don't see any problem with dropping it in right now then. The real question will be what do people want to be able to backport once the release branch is created. Regards Scott On 7/04/2010, at 5:35 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: The security redesign implementation itself is mostly finished. There are a few TODOs and they can be found in the BranchReadMe.txt file. I recently synchronized the branch with the trunk and there is a remote chance something in the design might have broken in the process. I need to run some tests and review the code to see if that happened. The Example component has been switched over to the new design. There is a user login called artifact-user that demonstrates the new design. That user login is restricted to using the Example component. If the branch was merged back to the trunk and the new security design was enabled, the Example component would use the new design and the remaining components would still use the current security design. The two can co-exist. I imagine the process after that would be similar to when we introduced the permission checking services - contributors can contribute code that converts parts of the project over to the new security design. Conversion involves removing hard-coded permission checks and creating seed data to grant permission to component artifacts. As I mentioned before, switching a component over to the new design can create some unexpected problems. That's because our existing code has security holes in it, and the new design plugs those holes - making parts of the component unreachable. In other words, parts of code that happily allow you to do things you don't have permission to do will start to throw exceptions in the new design. -Adrian Scott Gray wrote: Question: What exactly is the current status of the execution branch? What is it that needs to be done for it to be enabled in the trunk? I'm sorry if you feel you've already answered that question but I'm afraid it still isn't entirely clear to me. Regards Scott On 7/04/2010, at 5:14 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: If we wait, then we're waiting for evaluation and testing of the branch. I've done all I can do - the code is written, I suggested we do the merge before the release branch, and I gave my reasons for suggesting it. At this point in time I have stepped out of the discussion (in a positive way) to give others a chance to look at the design and the code and decide for themselves if it should be included. In other words, I don't want to be in a position where I have to convince the community what it should do. If the design and the implementation are good, then there will be no need to convince anyone, right? I'll answer questions about the executioncontext branch, and I'll continue to work on it here and there when I have the time. If the release branch is created without it, then that will be fine with me. :-) -Adrian Scott Gray wrote: Considering we have yet to do an official release after 3.5 years and the lack of user interest in our release branches (partly because we recommend the trunk to everybody), I think it would be a waste of time and effort to create more than one release branch per year. If we want the security branch in there then lets wait, there is no good reason for us to release this month, it's just an arbitrary date. HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 7/04/2010, at 12:07 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: I would suggest to: 1) release 10.04 before the merge is done 2) merge the code to the trunk, switch to it, fix any possible issue 3) do another release (10.06?) I know this is not inline with what we currently think
Re: JNLP integratiion
This is good. I will love to see it. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Apr 7, 2010, at 10:58 PM, BJ Freeman wrote: I use swing for my interface to some clients for ofbiz. they would load the applet from a page and detaches it to their desktop. I have a interface that currently pulls in the web page created by ofbiz and converts it to the awt screen. I have done another iteration of this for my game the uses the JNLP way so the app now uses the Desktop after the first webpage download. JNLP provide updates to the user interface, and a secure connection back to ofbiz. in this app ofbiz send xml data instead of the pages. my question is any one interested? if so will port it from my 9.04 to the next release and put a patch in for it as I get time. = BJ Freeman http://bjfreeman.elance.com Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=93 Specialtymarket.com http://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Linkedin http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=key=1237480locale=en_UStrk=tab_pro
Re: Security Redesign and Release 10.x Branch
I am really not against merging executioncontext branch with trunk. I don't see reason to include it in upcoming release branch if we will not be using it. And yes, even though Webslinger is not a good examples we can still say that, decision put it in trunk was made too early, but its just me. Merging of executioncontext will make more sense to me if our release policy allowed back porting of some features from trunk to release brach (Internally I will be doing it anyways). If such thing was allowed then I can include framework changes now and at later date back port related enhancements to the branch. I have not seen Execution context thing but still I can say its more native to Ofbiz framework and qualifies to be in trunk more then webslinger (I have nothing against it). Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Apr 6, 2010, at 5:03 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: Anil Patel wrote: I was thinking, Why not other way round. As I understand, we will not be able to use execution content features in other parts of Ofbiz in time for 10.4 release. If this is the case then additional code in release branch may add some new issues but will not add any benefits. Right? Have you even looked at the design document or the code? So IMO we should wait till 10.04 release branch is created and merge executioncontext20091231 with trunk after 10.04 release branch is created. Okay, let's wait and then we will add the new issues to the 11.x release. Oops, we better not do that - let's hold off until 12.x... Do you see where this is going? We already have Webslinger in the project - a feature that isn't finished and isn't used. Has that caused problems in 9.04? -Adrian
Re: Security Redesign and Release 10.x Branch
Adrian, I am not arguing against merging security context code into trunk. In fact we will love to get it in trunk so it can we can use it. Having it in brach will make sense only if we can use it and it will meet of exceed the current security abilities of Ofbiz framework. If this is true then, Yes, I am in favor of getting the merge happen soon. In case the code in security context branch is not ready for use then, I don't see the advantage of having code in release branch that cannot be used. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Apr 6, 2010, at 8:59 PM, Scott Gray wrote: On 6/04/2010, at 6:36 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: --- On Tue, 4/6/10, Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: On 6/04/2010, at 5:18 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: Adam Heath wrote: Adrian Crum wrote: Anil Patel wrote: I was thinking, Why not other way round. As I understand, we will not be able to use execution content features in other parts of Ofbiz in time for 10.4 release. If this is the case then additional code in release branch may add some new issues but will not add any benefits. Right? Have you even looked at the design document or the code? Hmm, why do you have to be so difficult? Couldn't you have just answered the question? Or included a reference to the design document? You know more about this branch than others, so why not share that knowledge? I wasn't being difficult. Anil is saying the security redesign won't add any benefits. That tells me he hasn't read the design document. I think you're misinterpreting what he was saying, the no benefits is in reference to it being disabled because it isn't complete I'm a little stunned by all the push back. A year ago there was a lot of enthusiasm for this. Now it seems I'm the only person interested in seeing it included in the project. Included in the project and included in a release branch to be created this month are two very different things. Then something has changed. In the past, a release branch was created regardless of the state of the trunk. In other words, it was released warts and all. Nothing has changed, there is a difference between putting something in the trunk because it's ready to go in there and putting something in the trunk because a release branch is about to be created. So I would argue that the change is a behavioral one on your part because of the looming release branch. I not trying to be argumentative, but I would like to make one more point. If we wait until after the release branch, then the branch will be immediately obsolete. As an example: right after the R4 branch was created we refactored the UI. For the next two years we had users wishing we would port the trunk's UI over to R4. The new security design is far better than the current one. I have a feeling history will repeat itself. If that is a real problem then we should be delaying creating the branch and not rushing to cram things in there. The security framework is either finished and works and is ready to be committed or it isn't, which is it? I'm quite sure I will be working with this branch on a regular basis and I'm gonna be annoyed if it's plagued with problems because of this merge, I'm not saying it will be but I'd like to assured that it isn't likely. Regards Scott
Re: Peer Community and Strange Perceptions (was Re: svn commit: r923126 - /ofbiz/site/index.html)
David, I agree with Scott, If not all, I always try to read your emails on list. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Mar 17, 2010, at 10:32 PM, David E Jones wrote: Thanks Scott, I appreciate that. I hope you are able to continue enjoying it for a good long time. -David On Mar 17, 2010, at 8:12 PM, Scott Gray wrote: I'm sincerely sorry you feel that way and that you've been treated in the ways you describe below. I just want to say that I've read every single email you've written while I've been subscribed to the lists (and a pretty large number of the ones prior) and am immensely grateful for the knowledge you've shared with the community and for the contributions you've made. Because of what you and Andrew started, I get to work on software that I love every day while solving all sorts of interesting business problems. Regards Scott On 17/03/2010, at 7:34 PM, David E Jones wrote: I won't speak for Andrew, but I'm against this, a lot. Any advantage my contributions over time offers is more than cancelled out by suspicion of my motives, both now and in the past. This has resulted in all variety of personal attacks (usually based on an assumption of motives and ways of doing things) and resistance to anything I might propose. According to such I've intentionally made it hard for people to contribute things both now and even more a long while ago, and I've also made things intentionally difficult with OFBiz by design in order to make it harder for people to use it on their own in order drive business my way, and that's a small taste of the notions that continually come up on the mailing lists and in private emails. I'm tired of people calling me or emailing me privately to lay at my feet every imaginable problem and bug in OFBiz. I've had it with people sending their clients my way to help sell OFBiz when in fact it only costs me time and I get nothing positive out of it. Maybe I'm even more tired of prospective clients getting upset when I turn down there offers for piddling pay in exchange for brutal and risky work as if I can perform some miracle. And maybe it's even worse to have people constantly pinging me for referrals after a long history of things going very wrong when I have made the mistake of recommending people or companies. So sorry, but don't look to me. Dere's nuttin' I kin do 'round 'ere. I'm just the bad guy that set everyone up for the pain they're currently experiencing. That said, I don't think my invalidation is a bad thing for the community or the project at all. The community as a community of peers has to mature for the project to be successful and it's all the better if I'm not around interfering with the same. -David On Mar 17, 2010, at 10:41 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: +1 when I ask your opinion it was as I was learning and was looking for guidance, so I could contribute correctly. If you notice since we have had documentation, I have not ask that as much. I respect you for the effort and thought you put into ofbiz. So a blurb about you and andy would seem appropriate as the founders of ofbiz. = BJ Freeman http://bjfreeman.elance.com Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=93 Specialtymarket.com http://www.specialtymarket.com/ Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Linkedin http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=key=1237480locale=en_UStrk=tab_pro Adrian Crum sent the following on 3/17/2010 8:21 AM: David E Jones wrote: On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Scott Gray wrote: On 16/03/2010, at 6:39 PM, David E Jones wrote: I'll admit I empathize with what Sharan is expressing here. It's hard to do stuff, or know how to do stuff and what to do, when there are a bunch of people responding with implied policies or with vetoes for this and that. Well let's document it so everyone knows what the community policy is. Please feel free to comment on the guidelines I proposed elsewhere in this thread. You've quite clearly stepped away from taking an administrative position within the community and it would be nice if we didn't spend too much time criticizing people who are trying to help fill that void. Oh, is that what's happening? I guess I missed that... I didn't even realize there was an administrative void. Maybe it goes further than that... when I was the PMC Chair maybe a lot of stuff went on that needed more administration when I didn't think any interference was necessary. Or, maybe that has nothing to do with the PMC Chair role anyway... There is definitely a void of some kind. Your efforts to step back and take on a more passive role means something has changed in the community. If you're stepping back
Re: code ownership
Adam, Thanks for hard work. I am sure people in community respect your effort and will co-operate. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Mar 15, 2010, at 12:40 AM, Adam Heath wrote: So, with the recent threads we've participated in, I've decided to announce a decision of mine. Any class that I have added test cases that have gotten to 100% coverage, I have decided to take ownership of. Any change that is done to such a class *must* have a test case that keeps the coverage at 100%. This doesn't mean that the code will automatically work perfectly all the time. But if something *is* added that makes the coverage fall below 100%, it means the class is *not* fully tested, and that is a big problem. The classes that fall into this category are: org.ofbiz.base.concurrent.TTLCachedObject org.ofbiz.base.json.JSONWriter org.ofbiz.base.lang.ComparableRange org.ofbiz.base.util.IndentingWriter org.ofbiz.base.util.TimeDuration org.ofbiz.base.util.collections.FlexibleMapAccessort org.ofbiz.base.util.string.FlexibleStringExpander The above also have 100% coverage in their tests. The following classes are not fully covered, because of either difficulty in throwing exceptions at the right place, or non-blocking algorithms that are hard to write correct multi-threadeds tests for. The numbers stand for line coverage/branch coverage. org.ofbiz.base.concurrent.TTLObject(91%/94%) org.ofbiz.base.conversion.Converters(89%/86%) org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilObject(93%/100%) org.ofbiz.base.util.ObjectType.simpleTypeConvert has full line coverage. The only thing not covered is a single branch, the one at the end of the method that calls Debug.infoOn(). These additional 3 classes and method I am also going to take ownership of. While Converters has good coverage, the actual converter implementations do not. This is something I will be fixing in the coming days.
Re: svn commit: r919717 - in /ofbiz/site: images/follow_us-b.png index.html
Hans, This is inappropriate comment. I am PMC member and objected because apache_ofbiz is NOT an official twitter account for Apache Ofbiz. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Mar 6, 2010, at 3:58 AM, hans...@apache.org wrote: Author: hansbak Date: Sat Mar 6 08:58:36 2010 New Revision: 919717 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=919717view=rev Log: a number of ofbiz pmc members did not want an official apache ofbiz twitter, so removed again Removed: ofbiz/site/images/follow_us-b.png Modified: ofbiz/site/index.html Modified: ofbiz/site/index.html URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/site/index.html?rev=919717r1=919716r2=919717view=diff == --- ofbiz/site/index.html (original) +++ ofbiz/site/index.html Sat Mar 6 08:58:36 2010 @@ -34,9 +34,6 @@ a href=#Login | /a a href=#Register | /a a href=#Settings/a /div -- -div id=language -a href=http://www.twitter.com/apache_ofbiz;img src=images/follow_us-b.png //a -/div div id=nav ul li id=currenta href=http://ofbiz.apache.org/;Home/a/li
Re: ofbiz twitter account was: Re: svn commit: r918926 - in /ofbiz/site: images/follow_us-b.png index.html
Hans I have objection as well. The content you are referring to is a tutorial and not code. There is no set rule to use nothing but form widget. I have no issues using technology that fulfills my business needs. Anil. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 5, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Hans Bakker mailingl...@antwebsystems.com wrote: This 'opinion' as you call it was agreed a long time ago that forms should be used wherever possible, On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 19:37 -0700, Scott Gray wrote: Here's an example of why the whole thing makes me uncomfortable: Latest tweet from apache_ofbiz: Using Ajax in Ofbiz? Check part 6 in the ofbiz development tutorial guide at http://j.mp/bvTEwU . A pity it is not using forms.Thanks Praney The 3rd sentence is quite clearly an opinion and thus Hans' opinion is now the opinion of the project in the eyes of people reading these tweets. Regards Scott On 5/03/2010, at 7:31 PM, Scott Gray wrote: The key point you are missing here Hans is that nobody asked you to provide this service to the community on behalf of the project and you have no right to do so. You are very clearly violating the ASF's policies and I would ask you kindly to revert your revert of my revert. If you really believe that this is something that is wanted then request a vote on the PMC list and I will gladly accept the result. Thanks Scott On 5/03/2010, at 7:13 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: I answered all outstanding questions and concerns and consider these issues resolved. Regards, Hans On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 19:03 -0700, Scott Gray wrote: Reverted in r919688, I am in no way comfortable with you running a twitter feed and pretending that it represents the OFBiz project regardless of your intentions. If you want to do something like this then get it approved by the PMC first. Regards Scott On 5/03/2010, at 12:26 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: Ok, here an answer for all the questions about this twitter account. First of all, as i already said, i was just making promotion for OFBiz, to the casual end user who want to see what is happening and may later get involved. Do i do this for free? No, i want something back, only that Antwebsystems is mentioned somewhere doing this service. As long as i do it alone i think this is pretty reasonable. Is this an Antwebsystems account? No it is not. The antwebsystems account is http://twitter.com/ofbiz_support and my personal account is: http://twitter.com/hansbak . If you go to http://antwebsystems.com you will see these tweets at the right hand side of the website. I think this would also be nice for the OFBiz website, of course the OFBiz account only :-) This is my contribution to the Apache OFBiz project. It has nothing to do with the apache foundation, it is just OFBiz. Will it be accessible to all contributors? Sure, running a professional twitter account takes time and effort. Any contributor interested helping here is very welcome, as long we keep the target user in mind: the potential end user. Hopefully this clears up everything and we can return back to what we are doing best: promote and improve OFBiz. Regards, Hans. P.S. If somebody is interested helping let me know i will give you access if you are a committer. If you are a contributor send your tweets to @apache_ofbiz and i will retweet them if they fit the target audience. -- Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates -- Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates -- Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
I rather see it differently. Framework components should core ones that compare to similar things out there. I will rather have help move out of framework instead of moving content and Party into framework. I think we should do /framework, /baseapps, /applications We can put all those core components that need data model in /baseapps. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Feb 26, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Yes, I have looked at the patch. I am in favor of it. My reasoning: help would be important functionality for the framework. Help depends on some content tables which in turn depend on some party components. By moving entities in a similar hack, I have managed to get a standalone framework running and switch back to the full ofbiz just by changing component-load.xml Scott Gray wrote: Have you even looked at the patch? It is certainly not intended to be committed. Are you in favor of the patch? If so, could you please explain why you would like to see the party and content application components included in a framework only release? Thanks Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:22 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno's question: So could we please review the patch? Does it make sense? If there are no major objections, then I guess he will commit it? Scott Gray wrote: What exactly are you requesting that people vote on? Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:15 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno has a patch that will allow us to run ofbiz standalone - without breaking anything! This is a small but important step towards framework independence... https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3505 Many thanks in advance, Chris
Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
Chris, I agree with your list except for help. Help system should be a plugin that can be added to system. Delivery of Help should be controlled by screen design. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Feb 26, 2010, at 3:02 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Hi Anil, I believe a standalone application development framework should have all the functionality a developer needs to create an application, i.e. - persistence - services - presentation tier - reporting - help - security management - job scheduler - audit trail Cheers, Chris Anil Patel wrote: I rather see it differently. Framework components should core ones that compare to similar things out there. I will rather have help move out of framework instead of moving content and Party into framework. I think we should do /framework, /baseapps, /applications We can put all those core components that need data model in /baseapps. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Feb 26, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Yes, I have looked at the patch. I am in favor of it. My reasoning: help would be important functionality for the framework. Help depends on some content tables which in turn depend on some party components. By moving entities in a similar hack, I have managed to get a standalone framework running and switch back to the full ofbiz just by changing component-load.xml Scott Gray wrote: Have you even looked at the patch? It is certainly not intended to be committed. Are you in favor of the patch? If so, could you please explain why you would like to see the party and content application components included in a framework only release? Thanks Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:22 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno's question: So could we please review the patch? Does it make sense? If there are no major objections, then I guess he will commit it? Scott Gray wrote: What exactly are you requesting that people vote on? Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:15 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno has a patch that will allow us to run ofbiz standalone - without breaking anything! This is a small but important step towards framework independence... https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3505 Many thanks in advance, Chris
Re: first steps to framework independence! vote here!
In fact Yes, I think birt should not be in framework as well. But its ok, because a) because it does not really have any database dependency b) Its third party library integration so the code in Ofbiz framework will not change as much. Ideally, Yes I will like it to be out of the framework :) Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Feb 26, 2010, at 3:21 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Hi Anil, I suppose you could argue that birt should be a plugin too? Not every app needs reporting and birt does add a lot of overhead. Cbeers, Chris Anil Patel wrote: Chris, I agree with your list except for help. Help system should be a plugin that can be added to system. Delivery of Help should be controlled by screen design. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Feb 26, 2010, at 3:02 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Hi Anil, I believe a standalone application development framework should have all the functionality a developer needs to create an application, i.e. - persistence - services - presentation tier - reporting - help - security management - job scheduler - audit trail Cheers, Chris Anil Patel wrote: I rather see it differently. Framework components should core ones that compare to similar things out there. I will rather have help move out of framework instead of moving content and Party into framework. I think we should do /framework, /baseapps, /applications We can put all those core components that need data model in /baseapps. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Feb 26, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Yes, I have looked at the patch. I am in favor of it. My reasoning: help would be important functionality for the framework. Help depends on some content tables which in turn depend on some party components. By moving entities in a similar hack, I have managed to get a standalone framework running and switch back to the full ofbiz just by changing component-load.xml Scott Gray wrote: Have you even looked at the patch? It is certainly not intended to be committed. Are you in favor of the patch? If so, could you please explain why you would like to see the party and content application components included in a framework only release? Thanks Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:22 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno's question: So could we please review the patch? Does it make sense? If there are no major objections, then I guess he will commit it? Scott Gray wrote: What exactly are you requesting that people vote on? Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/02/2010, at 12:15 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Bruno has a patch that will allow us to run ofbiz standalone - without breaking anything! This is a small but important step towards framework independence... https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3505 Many thanks in advance, Chris
Re: Rethinking our release strategy
I know we used to have a release management document on old confluence. Its matter of locating it. I request, Please don't draw conclusions so quickly. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: It is ironic. Ruth Christopher Snow wrote: It's kind of funny that ofbiz promotes the use of best practice in many areas (http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/dosearchsite.action?queryString=ofbiz%20best%20practice) EXCEPT release management. Ruth Hoffman wrote: Hi Jacopo: Its nice to see this kind of thought going into a release strategy. Thanks for the effort. Please see my comments inline. Note, this is just my opinion based on years of working with big complex IT organizations. These are the kind of users who ultimately would be implementing OFBiz (I hope...): Jacopo Cappellato wrote: I know this subject has been already discussed several times in the past, but I still would like to rethink our strategy for releases in OFBiz. I am under the impression that, considering the release branch 9.04, that is our latest release branch: * there are more users than maintainers This is probably true. But to get a better understanding of who is using what, maybe we could look into getting download statistics? I have already put in a request to the infrastructure team for this, but have not heard anything back from them. Maybe a project committer has more clout and could get this implemented? Without that, we are just speculating about who is doing what with the code. * because of this, no real maintenance plan, test strategy etc.. has been created around it from the community of users and interested parties (in fact we were not really able to officially release it) * a lot of new users start eveluating OFBiz from that instead of the trunk * it is rather old, several new features are missing and also code improvements (that could fix bugs etc) I thought all the bug fixes were retrofitted to the release? Is this not true? * because of this, it tends to be less stable than the trunk How could the release be less stable than the trunk if bug fixes are applied to the release and the trunk? The main cons of this situations are the following: 1) not real interest in maintaining a release branch means that we will not be able to spend time on it and officially release it: the OFBiz community will miss the advantage of using the marketing channel represented by a new release 2) new users will get the wrong impression that the project is slowing improving if they just get the releases Project committers should consider this behavior pattern: Most people evaluating code will not want the latest release. They will patiently wait until someone else has taken on the risk (and reward) of debugging it. Do not think that just because the project releases a new release of OFBiz, that everyone will stampede to get it. Far from it. Now if we had download statistics we could verify my claim, but I'd be willing to bet real money, that the only people who will jump to download this new release will be project committers. 3) it is much easier for a user to stay up to date with the trunk rather than with a release: I mean that there is no guarantee that one day someone will build an upgrade plan from the old release to the new one... users of the old release may be left behind forever I think you mistake user with committer. What user is actively trying to stay current with the trunk? Just some food for thought. What I suggest is based on the following assumptions: 1) community is not ready or interested in maintaining releases Only the committers are not interested. Users out there may have a different story to tell. Personally, I'd like to see releases maintained. 2) new users prefer to start evaluating OFBiz with a release instead of the trunk 3) it is good for the project to announce new releases often True. Very true. 4) because our current policies (slowly increasing number of committers, peer reviews, etc...) our trunk is (and will be) more stable than older releases Again, why? I thought bug fixes are committed back to a release if appropriate. Is this not the case? Here is what I suggest: A) define an official release plan that says that we officially issue a release every approx 6 months (just to give you an idea): since there is no way to define a set of features that will go in the next release, our releases will be based on dates instead of features; but of course we can discuss the exact time of a release based on what is going on 1-2 weeks before the release date Don't release every 6 months. That's crazy. Once a year is sufficient. Put in place a real release plan including features, fixes and upgrade instructions in advance and then work towards
Re: Rethinking our release strategy
Chris, Thanks for listing important tasks for managing product release. In ofbiz community little less has been done on this front, I wish we could be better. Very fundamental difference between professional open source projects like you mentioned and Ofbiz is that, Ofbiz is community managed and developed project. If you search mailing list archive, you can find some good discussions on this topic. Some people may consider it (that we don't get these professionally managed releases) as drawback of Ofbiz, while others may see opportunity. Somebody can build business around delivering services like you mentioned. We still have huge untapped market. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Feb 16, 2010, at 1:28 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: Hi Anil, Most of the stuff on this document appears to happen, so the question is do we need to be doing more? For example, there appears to be just two roles on this project, committers and contributors. Who is responsible for the following areas for each release: - migration from old to new releases - patch management - dependency management - quality management - documentation - etc.. I expect there would be many people who are not contributors who would be willing to head up some of the above areas (including myself). The more I think about it, the above areas are where others products are much better (adempiere, openerp, openbravo). They appear to have a much stronger release management process. Cheers, Chris Anil Patel wrote: I know we used to have a release management document on old confluence. Its matter of locating it. I request, Please don't draw conclusions so quickly. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: It is ironic. Ruth Christopher Snow wrote: It's kind of funny that ofbiz promotes the use of best practice in many areas (http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/dosearchsite.action?queryString=ofbiz%20best%20practice) EXCEPT release management. Ruth Hoffman wrote: Hi Jacopo: Its nice to see this kind of thought going into a release strategy. Thanks for the effort. Please see my comments inline. Note, this is just my opinion based on years of working with big complex IT organizations. These are the kind of users who ultimately would be implementing OFBiz (I hope...): Jacopo Cappellato wrote: I know this subject has been already discussed several times in the past, but I still would like to rethink our strategy for releases in OFBiz. I am under the impression that, considering the release branch 9.04, that is our latest release branch: * there are more users than maintainers This is probably true. But to get a better understanding of who is using what, maybe we could look into getting download statistics? I have already put in a request to the infrastructure team for this, but have not heard anything back from them. Maybe a project committer has more clout and could get this implemented? Without that, we are just speculating about who is doing what with the code. * because of this, no real maintenance plan, test strategy etc.. has been created around it from the community of users and interested parties (in fact we were not really able to officially release it) * a lot of new users start eveluating OFBiz from that instead of the trunk * it is rather old, several new features are missing and also code improvements (that could fix bugs etc) I thought all the bug fixes were retrofitted to the release? Is this not true? * because of this, it tends to be less stable than the trunk How could the release be less stable than the trunk if bug fixes are applied to the release and the trunk? The main cons of this situations are the following: 1) not real interest in maintaining a release branch means that we will not be able to spend time on it and officially release it: the OFBiz community will miss the advantage of using the marketing channel represented by a new release 2) new users will get the wrong impression that the project is slowing improving if they just get the releases Project committers should consider this behavior pattern: Most people evaluating code will not want the latest release. They will patiently wait until someone else has taken on the risk (and reward) of debugging it. Do not think that just because the project releases a new release of OFBiz, that everyone will stampede to get it. Far from it. Now if we had download statistics we could verify my claim, but I'd be willing to bet real money, that the only people who will jump to download this new release will be project committers. 3
Re: Response message after invoking a jsonservice
Erwan,
Here is code snipped from checkoutProcess.js file in ecommerce component.
// Check server side error
function getServerError(data) {
var serverErrorHash = [];
var serverError = ;
if (data._ERROR_MESSAGE_LIST_ != undefined) {
serverErrorHash = data._ERROR_MESSAGE_LIST_;
serverErrorHash.each(function(error) {
serverError += error.message;
});
}
if (data._ERROR_MESSAGE_ != undefined) {
serverError = data._ERROR_MESSAGE_;
}
return serverError;
}
Thanks and Regards
Anil Patel
HotWax Media Inc
Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz
On Dec 10, 2009, at 11:43 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
Hi all,
How is handled the error messages after a jsonservice event type ? Here is a
concrete example :
Go to Ajax examples, and create an example. No problem, it's working. But if
in the example/../controller.xml, line 78, you replace the name of the
service invoked for the example creation, then, when creating an example,
nothing is done. That's normal, but there is no error message on the screen.
The only indicator we have is in the log :
2009-12-10 17:34:03,343 (http-0.0.0.0-8443-1) [
RequestHandler.java:412:ERROR] Request createExampleAjax caused an error with
the following message: Erreur lors de l'appel de l'événement:
org.ofbiz.webapp.event.EventHandlerException: Problems getting the service
model (Cannot locate service by name (eventWhichDoesntExist))
But there is nothing displayed for the user. Does anyone knows how to display
an error ?
Thanks,
--
Erwan de FERRIERES
www.nereide.biz
Re: Response message after invoking a jsonservice
As of now, Its true, you need to write a method to analyze server response. This should be improved. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Dec 10, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: Hi Anil, thanks for the quick response. Are you saying that for each page in which we are calling a jsonservice, we should also have a js file which analyse the server response ? Cheers, -- Erwan de FERRIERES www.nereide.biz
Re: Download statistics?
I am not aware of any such tracking system in place. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: Hello David and Other List Members: Is there anyway to tell how many downloads have occurred recently (last month, 6 months) at the official OFBiz download site: http://build.ofbiz.org? TIA Ruth ruth.hoff...@myofbiz.com Want to know more about OFBiz? Please visit my website: http://www.myofbiz.com
Re: Bugs and open Jira issues
Ruth, Why don't you consider using one of the release branches? Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:06 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: Hi Scott: Then stop the committing and do some reviewing. There is more to software development than committing code to a repository. This is interesting perspective. Trunk is expected to remain active. New development must continue. For the people who needs more stable version we do have release branch. Regards, Ruth Scott Gray wrote: On 7/12/2009, at 10:22 PM, Jeroen van der Wal wrote: Thank you Jacques for addressing this as this situation worries me too. Although I think the power of the Ofbiz community can handle it :-) My suggestions would be: - Assign volunteers and a lead to each of the components. They can watch issues of their components and should can be consulted if anybody wants to make changes in their neighbourhood. We already have these volunteers, they're called people who review commits and I could probably count them on one hand. Everything you've suggested requires more resources than this community can provide. - Work bottom up: start with the framework, then the core modules (party, product, accounting, workeffort, manufactureing, order) and finally the specialpurpose modules (I personally consider humanres and marketing to be specialpurpose) - Communicate changes to dependent components so they can sanitize their components - Don't allow code without tests - Use branching for work in progress to maintain a stable trunk (I prefer Git over SVN but that's another topic...) I'm a big fan of branching, this explains why: - Code each task (or related set of tasks) in its own branch, then you will have the flexibility of when you would like to merge these tasks and perform a release. - QA should be done on each branch before it is merged to the trunk. - By doing QA on each individual branch, you will know exactly what caused the bug easier. - This solution scales to any number of developers. - This method works since branching is an almost instant operation in SVN. - Tag each release that you perform. - You can develop features that you don't plan to release for a while and decide exactly when to merge them. - For all work you do, you can have the benefit of committing your code. If you work out of the trunk only, you will probably keep your code uncommitted a lot, and hence unprotected and without automatic history. If you try to do the opposite and do all your development in the trunk you'll be plagged by: - Constant build problems for daily builds - Productivity loss when a a developer commits a problem for all other people on the project - Longer release cycles, because you need to finally get a stable version - Less stable releases Best, Jeroen van der Wal On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: Hi, I'd like to express a feeling I have. Actually it's not only my own feeling but also something some users have expressed recently. I'm quite happy to see that these last times a lot of effort have been made in order to fix OFBiz (yes to fix OFBiz!) It's really great to see new features in OFBiz. But I really wonder if we should not slow down the pace in integrating new features for a short period of time and should not make and even greatest effort to have a more stable OFBiz. There are 180 bugs opened in Jira. Don't you think it's time for the community to have a look at them and to fix the most important ones (109 are considered as at least important) ? Thanks Jacques
Re: New Users and OFBiz versions was: Bugs and open Jira issues
Ruth, Its depends on How you plan to work. If a 1) branch has all features you need 2) you plan to only customize for business use 3) Don't plan to contribute enhancements to Ofbiz trunk. Then Use Branch Else If 1) You need features from latest trunk 2) You don't care for upcoming features 3) You don't care for contributing enhancements to Ofbiz trunk Then Create Vendor branch from current trunk revision. This is painful and not easy. Else Keep current with trunk, work with community to get it better. End If These are my personal quick notes for you. I know David has already directed you to page that has more complete answer. Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Dec 7, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: Hi Anil: I feel like I'm spitting in the wind here...Please, let's just start this conversation over again. Under the following circumstances, which version or release of OFBiz should I use? I'm a new user and I want to customize my OFBiz instance for a new ERP deployment. TIA Ruth Find me on the web at http://www.myofbiz.com or Google Keyword myofbiz Anil Patel wrote: Ruth, Why don't you consider using one of the release branches? Thanks and Regards Anil Patel HotWax Media Inc Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword ofbiz On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:06 AM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: Hi Scott: Then stop the committing and do some reviewing. There is more to software development than committing code to a repository. This is interesting perspective. Trunk is expected to remain active. New development must continue. For the people who needs more stable version we do have release branch. Regards, Ruth Scott Gray wrote: On 7/12/2009, at 10:22 PM, Jeroen van der Wal wrote: Thank you Jacques for addressing this as this situation worries me too. Although I think the power of the Ofbiz community can handle it :-) My suggestions would be: - Assign volunteers and a lead to each of the components. They can watch issues of their components and should can be consulted if anybody wants to make changes in their neighbourhood. We already have these volunteers, they're called people who review commits and I could probably count them on one hand. Everything you've suggested requires more resources than this community can provide. - Work bottom up: start with the framework, then the core modules (party, product, accounting, workeffort, manufactureing, order) and finally the specialpurpose modules (I personally consider humanres and marketing to be specialpurpose) - Communicate changes to dependent components so they can sanitize their components - Don't allow code without tests - Use branching for work in progress to maintain a stable trunk (I prefer Git over SVN but that's another topic...) I'm a big fan of branching, this explains why: - Code each task (or related set of tasks) in its own branch, then you will have the flexibility of when you would like to merge these tasks and perform a release. - QA should be done on each branch before it is merged to the trunk. - By doing QA on each individual branch, you will know exactly what caused the bug easier. - This solution scales to any number of developers. - This method works since branching is an almost instant operation in SVN. - Tag each release that you perform. - You can develop features that you don't plan to release for a while and decide exactly when to merge them. - For all work you do, you can have the benefit of committing your code. If you work out of the trunk only, you will probably keep your code uncommitted a lot, and hence unprotected and without automatic history. If you try to do the opposite and do all your development in the trunk you'll be plagged by: - Constant build problems for daily builds - Productivity loss when a a developer commits a problem for all other people on the project - Longer release cycles, because you need to finally get a stable version - Less stable releases Best, Jeroen van der Wal On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: Hi, I'd like to express a feeling I have. Actually it's not only my own feeling but also something some users have expressed recently. I'm quite happy to see that these last times a lot of effort have been made in order to fix OFBiz (yes to fix OFBiz!) It's really great to see new features in OFBiz. But I really wonder if we should not slow down the pace in integrating new features for a short period of time and should not make and even greatest effort to have a more stable OFBiz. There are 180 bugs opened in Jira. Don't you think it's time for the community to have a look at them and to fix the most important ones (109 are considered
