Re: How about individual service provider pages on docs.ofbiz.org?
And you could require a link return to OFBiz website with a slogan such as This is an E-Commerce website powered by OFBiz - The Open For Business :). Shi Jinghai/Beijing Langhua Ltd. 在 2009-04-14二的 22:14 -0500，Tim Ruppert写道： Anybody think that if we break up some of the information on this page here: http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/JAM Into each service provider (that wants to obviously) could have their own page on the wiki that they maintain? This would allow people to post screenshots about their sites and get into more detail than we can in that table. It's just a thought, but I'd be happy to put sometime into getting some templates (or structure) setup to make that easier for people to do. Interested in hearing your thoughts whenever. Cheers, Tim -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595
Re: How about individual service provider pages on docs.ofbiz.org?
From: Shi Jinghai sh...@langhua.cn And you could require a link return to OFBiz website with a slogan such as This is an E-Commerce website powered by OFBiz - The Open For Business :). Shi Jinghai/Beijing Langhua Ltd. Yes good point Shi ! 在 2009-04-14二的 22:14 -0500，Tim Ruppert写道： Anybody think that if we break up some of the information on this page here: http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/JAM Into each service provider (that wants to obviously) could have their own page on the wiki that they maintain? This would allow people to post screenshots about their sites and get into more detail than we can in that table. It's just a thought, but I'd be happy to put sometime into getting some templates (or structure) setup to make that easier for people to do. Interested in hearing your thoughts whenever. Hi Tim, Would this reply the links from OFBiz site main page ? Jacques Cheers, Tim -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595
Re: How about individual service provider pages on docs.ofbiz.org?
jacques, not sure what you mean by reply the links from the OFBiz site main page - but they'd definitely provide a lot more depth on what those links mean in this context. Cheers, Tim -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595 - Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: From: Shi Jinghai sh...@langhua.cn And you could require a link return to OFBiz website with a slogan such as This is an E-Commerce website powered by OFBiz - The Open For Business :). Shi Jinghai/Beijing Langhua Ltd. Yes good point Shi ! 在 2009-04-14二的 22:14 -0500，Tim Ruppert写道： Anybody think that if we break up some of the information on this page here: http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/JAM Into each service provider (that wants to obviously) could have their own page on the wiki that they maintain? This would allow people to post screenshots about their sites and get into more detail than we can in that table. It's just a thought, but I'd be happy to put sometime into getting some templates (or structure) setup to make that easier for people to do. Interested in hearing your thoughts whenever. Hi Tim, Would this reply the links from OFBiz site main page ? Jacques Cheers, Tim -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595
Re: How about individual service provider pages on docs.ofbiz.org?
yeah - I think we've found the common ground - we both just handle ourselves differently when it comes to that. I like to have personalized content to the type of feed - MySpace, LinkedIn, Facebook, OFBiz docs, whatever - instead of expecting my slightly larger than most sites to help everyone find their info. Anyways, thanks again - glad that I understand it more clearly now - and people can decide for themselves how they use those types of tools and whether or not this is important or just another thing they'd want to maintain :) Cheers, Tim -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595 - Adrian Crum adrian.c...@yahoo.com wrote: Understood. I have profiles on many blogging sites, and they all point to one home page where people can find out more about me. That's what motivated my reply. -Adrian --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Tim Ruppert tim.rupp...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: From: Tim Ruppert tim.rupp...@hotwaxmedia.com Subject: Re: How about individual service provider pages on docs.ofbiz.org? To: user@ofbiz.apache.org Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 8:39 PM At a fundamental level - yes. This would just be another place - easy to link to in the community - where people could put up a profile where they could show off their stuff. Tons of companies / consultants, utilize different medium like MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc to show information about themselves. This wouldn't be all that different except it would be focused on OFBiz - and specifically what you've done in there. Potentially a different audience. This also seemed like a good way to get more information about installations that are out there. I received a number of front end screenshots from sites that I didn't know existed - which kinda led to the idea. Anyways, thanks for the feedback - I hope this better explained my motivations . Cheers, Tim -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595 - Adrian Crum adrian.c...@yahoo.com wrote: Isn't that what they do already with the links to their websites? -Adrian --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Tim Ruppert tim.rupp...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: From: Tim Ruppert tim.rupp...@hotwaxmedia.com Subject: How about individual service provider pages on docs.ofbiz.org? To: user user@ofbiz.apache.org Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 8:14 PM Anybody think that if we break up some of the information on this page here: http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/JAM Into each service provider (that wants to obviously) could have their own page on the wiki that they maintain? This would allow people to post screenshots about their sites and get into more detail than we can in that table. It's just a thought, but I'd be happy to put sometime into getting some templates (or structure) setup to make that easier for people to do. Interested in hearing your thoughts whenever. Cheers, Tim -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595
Re: How about individual service provider pages on docs.ofbiz.org?
I Thank YOU! Now I understand your viewpoint. I admit it: I'm lazy. I create one web page everyone can go to, and I link to it from all of my 'peripheral' sites. *Feels shamed, bows to Tim* -Adrian --- On Wed, 4/15/09, Tim Ruppert tim.rupp...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: From: Tim Ruppert tim.rupp...@hotwaxmedia.com Subject: Re: How about individual service provider pages on docs.ofbiz.org? To: user@ofbiz.apache.org Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 12:38 AM yeah - I think we've found the common ground - we both just handle ourselves differently when it comes to that. I like to have personalized content to the type of feed - MySpace, LinkedIn, Facebook, OFBiz docs, whatever - instead of expecting my slightly larger than most sites to help everyone find their info. Anyways, thanks again - glad that I understand it more clearly now - and people can decide for themselves how they use those types of tools and whether or not this is important or just another thing they'd want to maintain :) Cheers, Tim -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595 - Adrian Crum adrian.c...@yahoo.com wrote: Understood. I have profiles on many blogging sites, and they all point to one home page where people can find out more about me. That's what motivated my reply. -Adrian --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Tim Ruppert tim.rupp...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: From: Tim Ruppert tim.rupp...@hotwaxmedia.com Subject: Re: How about individual service provider pages on docs.ofbiz.org? To: user@ofbiz.apache.org Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 8:39 PM At a fundamental level - yes. This would just be another place - easy to link to in the community - where people could put up a profile where they could show off their stuff. Tons of companies / consultants, utilize different medium like MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc to show information about themselves. This wouldn't be all that different except it would be focused on OFBiz - and specifically what you've done in there. Potentially a different audience. This also seemed like a good way to get more information about installations that are out there. I received a number of front end screenshots from sites that I didn't know existed - which kinda led to the idea. Anyways, thanks for the feedback - I hope this better explained my motivations . Cheers, Tim -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595 - Adrian Crum adrian.c...@yahoo.com wrote: Isn't that what they do already with the links to their websites? -Adrian --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Tim Ruppert tim.rupp...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: From: Tim Ruppert tim.rupp...@hotwaxmedia.com Subject: How about individual service provider pages on docs.ofbiz.org? To: user user@ofbiz.apache.org Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 8:14 PM Anybody think that if we break up some of the information on this page here: http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/JAM Into each service provider (that wants to obviously) could have their own page on the wiki that they maintain? This would allow people to post screenshots about their sites and get into more detail than we can in that table. It's just a thought, but I'd be happy to put sometime into getting some templates (or structure) setup to make that easier for people to do. Interested in hearing your thoughts whenever. Cheers, Tim -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595
Re: How about individual service provider pages on docs.ofbiz.org?
Oops, sorry I meaned replace (age :/) Jacques From: Tim Ruppert tim.rupp...@hotwaxmedia.com jacques, not sure what you mean by reply the links from the OFBiz site main page - but they'd definitely provide a lot more depth on what those links mean in this context. Cheers, Tim -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595 - Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: From: Shi Jinghai sh...@langhua.cn And you could require a link return to OFBiz website with a slogan such as This is an E-Commerce website powered by OFBiz - The Open For Business :). Shi Jinghai/Beijing Langhua Ltd. Yes good point Shi ! 在 2009-04-14二的 22:14 -0500，Tim Ruppert写道： Anybody think that if we break up some of the information on this page here: http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/JAM Into each service provider (that wants to obviously) could have their own page on the wiki that they maintain? This would allow people to post screenshots about their sites and get into more detail than we can in that table. It's just a thought, but I'd be happy to put sometime into getting some templates (or structure) setup to make that easier for people to do. Interested in hearing your thoughts whenever. Hi Tim, Would this reply the links from OFBiz site main page ? Jacques Cheers, Tim -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595
Re: How about individual service provider pages on docs.ofbiz.org?
They would be an extension and if it was decided to remove them - then a replacement for sure. Cheers, Tim -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595 - Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: Oops, sorry I meaned replace (age :/) Jacques From: Tim Ruppert tim.rupp...@hotwaxmedia.com jacques, not sure what you mean by reply the links from the OFBiz site main page - but they'd definitely provide a lot more depth on what those links mean in this context. Cheers, Tim -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595 - Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: From: Shi Jinghai sh...@langhua.cn And you could require a link return to OFBiz website with a slogan such as This is an E-Commerce website powered by OFBiz - The Open For Business :). Shi Jinghai/Beijing Langhua Ltd. Yes good point Shi ! 在 2009-04-14二的 22:14 -0500，Tim Ruppert写道： Anybody think that if we break up some of the information on this page here: http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/JAM Into each service provider (that wants to obviously) could have their own page on the wiki that they maintain? This would allow people to post screenshots about their sites and get into more detail than we can in that table. It's just a thought, but I'd be happy to put sometime into getting some templates (or structure) setup to make that easier for people to do. Interested in hearing your thoughts whenever. Hi Tim, Would this reply the links from OFBiz site main page ? Jacques Cheers, Tim -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595
Re: How about individual service provider pages on docs.ofbiz.org?
Just different - definitely not better - there's something to be said for keeping things up in different places - you gotta remember all of them :) Cheers, Tim -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595 - Adrian Crum adrian.c...@yahoo.com wrote: I Thank YOU! Now I understand your viewpoint. I admit it: I'm lazy. I create one web page everyone can go to, and I link to it from all of my 'peripheral' sites. *Feels shamed, bows to Tim* -Adrian --- On Wed, 4/15/09, Tim Ruppert tim.rupp...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: From: Tim Ruppert tim.rupp...@hotwaxmedia.com Subject: Re: How about individual service provider pages on docs.ofbiz.org? To: user@ofbiz.apache.org Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 12:38 AM yeah - I think we've found the common ground - we both just handle ourselves differently when it comes to that. I like to have personalized content to the type of feed - MySpace, LinkedIn, Facebook, OFBiz docs, whatever - instead of expecting my slightly larger than most sites to help everyone find their info. Anyways, thanks again - glad that I understand it more clearly now - and people can decide for themselves how they use those types of tools and whether or not this is important or just another thing they'd want to maintain :) Cheers, Tim -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595 - Adrian Crum adrian.c...@yahoo.com wrote: Understood. I have profiles on many blogging sites, and they all point to one home page where people can find out more about me. That's what motivated my reply. -Adrian --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Tim Ruppert tim.rupp...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: From: Tim Ruppert tim.rupp...@hotwaxmedia.com Subject: Re: How about individual service provider pages on docs.ofbiz.org? To: user@ofbiz.apache.org Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 8:39 PM At a fundamental level - yes. This would just be another place - easy to link to in the community - where people could put up a profile where they could show off their stuff. Tons of companies / consultants, utilize different medium like MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc to show information about themselves. This wouldn't be all that different except it would be focused on OFBiz - and specifically what you've done in there. Potentially a different audience. This also seemed like a good way to get more information about installations that are out there. I received a number of front end screenshots from sites that I didn't know existed - which kinda led to the idea. Anyways, thanks for the feedback - I hope this better explained my motivations . Cheers, Tim -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595 - Adrian Crum adrian.c...@yahoo.com wrote: Isn't that what they do already with the links to their websites? -Adrian --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Tim Ruppert tim.rupp...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: From: Tim Ruppert tim.rupp...@hotwaxmedia.com Subject: How about individual service provider pages on docs.ofbiz.org? To: user user@ofbiz.apache.org Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 8:14 PM Anybody think that if we break up some of the information on this page here: http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/JAM Into each service provider (that wants to obviously) could have their own page on the wiki that they maintain? This would allow people to post screenshots about their sites and get into more detail than we can in that table. It's just a thought, but I'd be happy to put sometime into getting some templates (or structure) setup to make that easier for people to do. Interested in hearing your thoughts whenever. Cheers, Tim -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595
Implement filtering non-invasively
Hi, I am currently trying to add a feature to the ecommerce component that allows to restrict visibility of products by assigning customer groups (party groups) to an associated category. I would like to do that without changing any of the existing code. My approach was to use secas but I discovered that I have no mean to get hold on the result of the service that triggered my seca. Thus I can't add filtering without touching existing code. Now I wonder if there is a different way of doing this, since I can't imagine that there is no way of changing the result of a service without changing framework code. regards, Benjamin -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Implement-filtering-non-invasively-tp23056257p23056257.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Implement filtering non-invasively
On Apr 15, 2009, at 12:25 PM, benni23 wrote: Now I wonder if there is a different way of doing this, since I can't imagine that there is no way of changing the result of a service without changing framework code. You can re-implement (override) the service in your custom component. Jacopo smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
RE: Refunding adjustments only
Ok, I was looking at the head for 4.0. It appears that the issue is fixed in the latest. Thanks. -Original Message- From: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 4:15 PM To: user@ofbiz.apache.org Subject: Re: Refunding adjustments only Are you speaking about the last release available at the moment (r764940) ? I don't see nay TODO on line 801 and moreover this is not a line of OrderReturnServices.processRefundReturn() method. The last change in this file was commited by me in r763175 one week ago http://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/src/ org/ofbiz/order/order/OrderReturnServices.java?r=763175 Could you clarify please ? Jacques From: Sanders, Brian bsand...@connextions.com It's in the head revision as well on line 801. -Original Message- From: Sanders, Brian [mailto:bsand...@connextions.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 12:32 PM To: user@ofbiz.apache.org Subject: RE: Refunding adjustments only When the project was imported into our repo, the revision # was 684368. The TODO was there. -Original Message- From: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 12:01 PM To: user@ofbiz.apache.org Subject: Re: Refunding adjustments only I did not find any TODO in OrderReturnServices.processRefundReturn() Are you sure its plain OFBiz code ? If yes, which Release.revision are you using ? Jacques From: Sanders, Brian bsand...@connextions.com If you look at processRefundReturn, you will notice that none of the code runs unless there is at least 1 line item. If you are refunding only, say, freight charges, the refund will not actually occur. There is a TODO labeled add adjustment total which sounds like the developers are aware of the issue. Is there a reason that it has not been implemented yet? If I were to try and implement the functionality myself, is there anything I should be aware off? Can anyone offer some tips/suggestions as to how to implement? Thanks.
Re: Features information
Done at http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/hgM#IsOFBizforMe-SomequestionsandanwserscollectedonuserML I have also added links from Table of Contents, and removed the line Written By: David E. Jones, [mailto:jone...@ofbiz.org] Please feel free to re-add if you think it should stay Jacques From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Hi David, I'd see this detailled explanation in a wiki main ENDUSER page like Some questions and answers about OFBiz to help you make your choice Jacques From: David E Jones david.jo...@hotwaxmedia.com On Mar 31, 2009, at 2:05 AM, fernando.manz...@vass.es wrote: Hi colleagues, I am writing to the list to request information concerning OFBiz. I am doing a eCommerce Software comparative between the main commercial and open source products. I have achieved to find information about client segmentation (use of groups), campaign managment (through Marketing Manager and promotions), stocks management (Facility Manager), product catalog (Product Manager), order management (using Order Manager application), content management (through Content Manager)... However, there are other features I have not been able to document. I would be very grateful if you could send me details about the following features: - Reports analytics capabilities OFBiz currently has a few dozens pre-written reports OOTB, and more can be added using the OFBiz tools, or an external reporting tool (which is still very common, ie companies that use something like Crystal Reports or Business Objects will use that with their OFBiz applications). OFBiz has tools in the framework to facilitate building of user interfaces, and these same tools are used for building reports. This provides a high level of efficiency, and allows developers to use the same tools they are used to... and in some cases scripts and other things can even be reused in reports. OFBiz also includes some BI infrastructure to support defining and populating star schemas, which can then be used for ad-hoc or pre- written reports. A limited star schema exists, and work is going on to extend it. - Integration and Interoperability (SOA Architecture, Web Services offered) The OFBiz logic layer is itself a Service-Oriented tool, and all primary logic in OFBiz is implemented as services. Many of these services can be exposed externally as web services automatically, and the more complex ones can be exposed as web services (or call web services) through web services code that maps to them. - Usability (for final customers, and administrators) Usability is very subjective, but I'll try to answer in a helpful way. OFBiz is often customized for larger organizations, and in those cases the best usability is achieved by analyzing processes and then building user interfaces to directly support those processes. This results in something specific to end-user requirements and is far better than any OOTB user interface that even the best designers could create without specific requirements. That is the main design goal behind OFBiz: easy customization since the only way to get a really good UI is to do so based on very specific requirements... and those requirements tend to change dramatically between organizations, in many cases even organizations in the same industry. The OOTB user interfaces are primarily meant for easy reuse in custom user interfaces, so they mostly avoid automating any specific process and are instead meant to fit into any process desired. However, using the OOTB interfaces is pretty common and is usually best done by documenting where and how to do common tasks according to the processes of the organization. In other words, instead of creating a custom UI when you are on a tighter budget you can simply document how to use the OOTB interfaces, and while not usually excellent this way it is quite adequate for smaller organizations and gives them more functionality and ability to automate things than they would have in most software, allowing them to avoid large numbers of spreadsheets and such. Overall this results in tools to keep track and automate organizational information that are far more efficient and usable that a hodge-podge of various systems. - Personalization potential Personalization is an extremely general term, broadly meaning behavior or data that changes according to the user. There are hundreds of features in OFBiz ecommerce and the OFBiz back-end (manager) apps that would fit this description. Please feel free to send over more details and I (or others) will be happy to comment on them. - Multidevice sites available? It is pretty easy to build sites targeted at different devices, and there are some available OOTB. If by device you mean a specific UI then the hhfacility component is a good example. If by device you mean specific hardware control (like cash drawers and CC scanners), then the pos component (point-of-sale) has some
RE: Refunding adjustments only
Well, it turns out it's not fixed in the latest. While it does make it
further into the code, it gets skipped over because of line 894:
while (itemByOrderIt.hasNext()) {
-Original Message-
From: Sanders, Brian [mailto:bsand...@connextions.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 8:40 AM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: RE: Refunding adjustments only
Ok, I was looking at the head for 4.0. It appears that the issue is
fixed in the latest. Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 4:15 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refunding adjustments only
Are you speaking about the last release available at the moment
(r764940) ?
I don't see nay TODO on line 801 and moreover this is not a line of
OrderReturnServices.processRefundReturn() method.
The last change in this file was commited by me in r763175 one week ago
http://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/src/
org/ofbiz/order/order/OrderReturnServices.java?r=763175
Could you clarify please ?
Jacques
From: Sanders, Brian bsand...@connextions.com
It's in the head revision as well on line 801.
-Original Message-
From: Sanders, Brian [mailto:bsand...@connextions.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 12:32 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: RE: Refunding adjustments only
When the project was imported into our repo, the revision # was
684368.
The TODO was there.
-Original Message-
From: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 12:01 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refunding adjustments only
I did not find any TODO in OrderReturnServices.processRefundReturn()
Are you sure its plain OFBiz code ?
If yes, which Release.revision are you using ?
Jacques
From: Sanders, Brian bsand...@connextions.com
If you look at processRefundReturn, you will notice that none of the
code runs unless there is at least 1 line item. If you are refunding
only, say, freight charges, the refund will not actually occur. There
is
a TODO labeled add adjustment total which sounds like the developers
are aware of the issue. Is there a reason that it has not been
implemented yet? If I were to try and implement the functionality
myself, is there anything I should be aware off? Can anyone offer some
tips/suggestions as to how to implement? Thanks.
Re: best web framework
Hi, We are currently implementing a solution using OFBiz as the back-end, Struts on the front-end, and RMI for communication between both. We choose RMI for 2 reasons : full java (no XML) and really good performance (a call is something like 50-100 ms). One thing you have to take care about is that with RMI, you cannot use OFBiz entities on the front-end so you have to write a proxy that transform OFBiz entities to front-end objects. Nothing complicated nevertheless. We made a prototype and it was ok, we are now implementing the real site. Once finished I will try to give you more feedback. HTH, Cimballi On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Vince Clark vcl...@globalera.com wrote: Our client has a requirement to deploy their ecommerce storefront on a physically separate server from the back office apps. We have been experimenting with other frameworks and integrating via web services for some time, and this requirement pushes up the urgency. Options we are considering: • Use OFBiz MVC framework to build the ecommerce site and deploy it on a separate server. Use RMI to communicate between two OFBiz instances. • Tapestry - Java based, so maybe RMI is still an option. But not sure if that really makes it any easier than using web services. • Symfony - we have prototyped this and exposed things like user login and shopping cart via web services on the OFBiz side. Have tested this with Axis2 and Mule. • DJango - Just looking into this. Our primary motivation for going with Symfony or DJango is to keep the web tier as light weight as possible. It would be all about presentation, and would consume all functionality from OFBiz. Looking forward to feedback from the community on this topic.
Re: best web framework
Thanks for the voice of reason David. When you say turn off the other webapps, what do you mean? Is it as simple as taking them out of the ofbiz-component.xml files? Also, I would still need to set different prefixes in entityengine.xml, correct? - Original Message - From: David E Jones david.jo...@hotwaxmedia.com To: user@ofbiz.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:57:04 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain Subject: Re: best web framework Depending on what the more specific requirements are the usual (and by FAR the easiest) way to do this is to use the same software on the ecommerce and back-end servers, but have configuration differences so that only the ecommerce webapp is available on ecommerce sever (ie turn off the other webapps), and only the non-ecommerce applications are enabled on the back-end servers (unless you want to use them for ecommerce staging as well, then you can certainly leave that on, but that server is generally ONLY accessible internally of course). In this scenario all app servers are communicating with the database server and coordinate that way. There is no need for communication between the servers except for the Entity Engine distributed cache clearing. If you use a pattern of a webapp server that talks to an app server that talks to a database you have an extra level of remote communications and that will significantly slow down your response times... as well as add the need for LOTS of coding! There is only one reason I know of for doing such things: a very stubborn person with his hands on the purse strings. That's it, there is NO good technical or business reason for such things. Some claim greater scalability, but real-world testing proves otherwise. -David On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Vince Clark wrote: Our client has a requirement to deploy their ecommerce storefront on a physically separate server from the back office apps. We have been experimenting with other frameworks and integrating via web services for some time, and this requirement pushes up the urgency. Options we are considering: • Use OFBiz MVC framework to build the ecommerce site and deploy it on a separate server. Use RMI to communicate between two OFBiz instances. • Tapestry - Java based, so maybe RMI is still an option. But not sure if that really makes it any easier than using web services. • Symfony - we have prototyped this and exposed things like user login and shopping cart via web services on the OFBiz side. Have tested this with Axis2 and Mule. • DJango - Just looking into this. Our primary motivation for going with Symfony or DJango is to keep the web tier as light weight as possible. It would be all about presentation, and would consume all functionality from OFBiz. Looking forward to feedback from the community on this topic.
Re: best web framework
Hi David ! I would not be so stubborn and there can be several reasons why to not use OFBiz on the client side. Imagine you want to provide a web2.0 flashy site to the customer, and you have a killer PHP or JSP developer in your team who can do all the UI stuff. Then, it can be interesting to let him doing his job and then call OFBiz services via RMI or WS. I would not ask to the UI developer to learn OFBiz way to develop UIs, and, even more, OFBiz offers the possibility to call its services remotly. In a project, there are technical reasons, business reasons, and human reasons. The best solution is the best mix of these 3. Don't you think it can be a good alternative ? Cimballi On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 1:57 PM, David E Jones david.jo...@hotwaxmedia.comwrote: Depending on what the more specific requirements are the usual (and by FAR the easiest) way to do this is to use the same software on the ecommerce and back-end servers, but have configuration differences so that only the ecommerce webapp is available on ecommerce sever (ie turn off the other webapps), and only the non-ecommerce applications are enabled on the back-end servers (unless you want to use them for ecommerce staging as well, then you can certainly leave that on, but that server is generally ONLY accessible internally of course). In this scenario all app servers are communicating with the database server and coordinate that way. There is no need for communication between the servers except for the Entity Engine distributed cache clearing. If you use a pattern of a webapp server that talks to an app server that talks to a database you have an extra level of remote communications and that will significantly slow down your response times... as well as add the need for LOTS of coding! There is only one reason I know of for doing such things: a very stubborn person with his hands on the purse strings. That's it, there is NO good technical or business reason for such things. Some claim greater scalability, but real-world testing proves otherwise. -David On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Vince Clark wrote: Our client has a requirement to deploy their ecommerce storefront on a physically separate server from the back office apps. We have been experimenting with other frameworks and integrating via web services for some time, and this requirement pushes up the urgency. Options we are considering: • Use OFBiz MVC framework to build the ecommerce site and deploy it on a separate server. Use RMI to communicate between two OFBiz instances. • Tapestry - Java based, so maybe RMI is still an option. But not sure if that really makes it any easier than using web services. • Symfony - we have prototyped this and exposed things like user login and shopping cart via web services on the OFBiz side. Have tested this with Axis2 and Mule. • DJango - Just looking into this. Our primary motivation for going with Symfony or DJango is to keep the web tier as light weight as possible. It would be all about presentation, and would consume all functionality from OFBiz. Looking forward to feedback from the community on this topic.
Re: best web framework
On Apr 15, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Vince Clark wrote: Thanks for the voice of reason David. When you say turn off the other webapps, what do you mean? Is it as simple as taking them out of the ofbiz-component.xml files? Yes, basically just comment out the webapp elements in the ofbiz- component.xml files (if you're deploying in the OOTB container, if in another app server just don't setup the webapps there). This is probably best done with a patch the is run only on the ecommerce server. Also, I would still need to set different prefixes in entityengine.xml, correct? You shouldn't need to do this. They are using the same database so they'll be sharing the sequencing table and they won't need a special prefix. Basically this scenario is just like having multiple app servers in general all sharing the same database. It doesn't really matter which webapps are deployed on each server. Doing a different prefix per system is mainly for systems where you have different databases that are synchronized over time and therefore have different sequencing tables. -David - Original Message - From: David E Jones david.jo...@hotwaxmedia.com To: user@ofbiz.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:57:04 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain Subject: Re: best web framework Depending on what the more specific requirements are the usual (and by FAR the easiest) way to do this is to use the same software on the ecommerce and back-end servers, but have configuration differences so that only the ecommerce webapp is available on ecommerce sever (ie turn off the other webapps), and only the non-ecommerce applications are enabled on the back-end servers (unless you want to use them for ecommerce staging as well, then you can certainly leave that on, but that server is generally ONLY accessible internally of course). In this scenario all app servers are communicating with the database server and coordinate that way. There is no need for communication between the servers except for the Entity Engine distributed cache clearing. If you use a pattern of a webapp server that talks to an app server that talks to a database you have an extra level of remote communications and that will significantly slow down your response times... as well as add the need for LOTS of coding! There is only one reason I know of for doing such things: a very stubborn person with his hands on the purse strings. That's it, there is NO good technical or business reason for such things. Some claim greater scalability, but real-world testing proves otherwise. -David On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Vince Clark wrote: Our client has a requirement to deploy their ecommerce storefront on a physically separate server from the back office apps. We have been experimenting with other frameworks and integrating via web services for some time, and this requirement pushes up the urgency. Options we are considering: • Use OFBiz MVC framework to build the ecommerce site and deploy it on a separate server. Use RMI to communicate between two OFBiz instances. • Tapestry - Java based, so maybe RMI is still an option. But not sure if that really makes it any easier than using web services. • Symfony - we have prototyped this and exposed things like user login and shopping cart via web services on the OFBiz side. Have tested this with Axis2 and Mule. • DJango - Just looking into this. Our primary motivation for going with Symfony or DJango is to keep the web tier as light weight as possible. It would be all about presentation, and would consume all functionality from OFBiz. Looking forward to feedback from the community on this topic.
Re: best web framework
That sounds like a different scenario. Naturally if you change the requirements the solution should be different! In that case you'd have the front-end running on the client talking to the ecommerce webapp server, which would probably be best just talking to the database. That's different from have the main HTML generation using mostly OOTB stuff talking via RMI to yet another app server that then talks to the database. On a side note, I'd recommend being careful introducing too many technologies! From experience people often don't know them as well as they say thy do and that's the main reason for choosing them. The net result is that you can't reuse existing artifacts and have to write lots more from scratch, and in addition you'll still have some UI using the standard OFBiz tools and it means people maintaining it going forward will have to know or learn about a larger set of tools. -David On Apr 15, 2009, at 1:20 PM, Cimballi wrote: Hi David ! I would not be so stubborn and there can be several reasons why to not use OFBiz on the client side. Imagine you want to provide a web2.0 flashy site to the customer, and you have a killer PHP or JSP developer in your team who can do all the UI stuff. Then, it can be interesting to let him doing his job and then call OFBiz services via RMI or WS. I would not ask to the UI developer to learn OFBiz way to develop UIs, and, even more, OFBiz offers the possibility to call its services remotly. In a project, there are technical reasons, business reasons, and human reasons. The best solution is the best mix of these 3. Don't you think it can be a good alternative ? Cimballi On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 1:57 PM, David E Jones david.jo...@hotwaxmedia.comwrote: Depending on what the more specific requirements are the usual (and by FAR the easiest) way to do this is to use the same software on the ecommerce and back-end servers, but have configuration differences so that only the ecommerce webapp is available on ecommerce sever (ie turn off the other webapps), and only the non-ecommerce applications are enabled on the back-end servers (unless you want to use them for ecommerce staging as well, then you can certainly leave that on, but that server is generally ONLY accessible internally of course). In this scenario all app servers are communicating with the database server and coordinate that way. There is no need for communication between the servers except for the Entity Engine distributed cache clearing. If you use a pattern of a webapp server that talks to an app server that talks to a database you have an extra level of remote communications and that will significantly slow down your response times... as well as add the need for LOTS of coding! There is only one reason I know of for doing such things: a very stubborn person with his hands on the purse strings. That's it, there is NO good technical or business reason for such things. Some claim greater scalability, but real-world testing proves otherwise. -David On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Vince Clark wrote: Our client has a requirement to deploy their ecommerce storefront on a physically separate server from the back office apps. We have been experimenting with other frameworks and integrating via web services for some time, and this requirement pushes up the urgency. Options we are considering: • Use OFBiz MVC framework to build the ecommerce site and deploy it on a separate server. Use RMI to communicate between two OFBiz instances. • Tapestry - Java based, so maybe RMI is still an option. But not sure if that really makes it any easier than using web services. • Symfony - we have prototyped this and exposed things like user login and shopping cart via web services on the OFBiz side. Have tested this with Axis2 and Mule. • DJango - Just looking into this. Our primary motivation for going with Symfony or DJango is to keep the web tier as light weight as possible. It would be all about presentation, and would consume all functionality from OFBiz. Looking forward to feedback from the community on this topic.
Re: best web framework
If you can share your experiences with that it would be great! Whatever the case, I hope your use of OFBiz is working well for you, and feedback (or contribution... ;) ) of things to improve in the project to make how you are using it easier is always welcome. -David On Apr 15, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Cimballi wrote: Ok, thanks for your comments. As I said before, here we are developing a site this way (using RMI), so when it will be ready, I will post a feedback on the list. Cimballi On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 2:32 PM, David E Jones david.jo...@hotwaxmedia.comwrote: That sounds like a different scenario. Naturally if you change the requirements the solution should be different! In that case you'd have the front-end running on the client talking to the ecommerce webapp server, which would probably be best just talking to the database. That's different from have the main HTML generation using mostly OOTB stuff talking via RMI to yet another app server that then talks to the database. On a side note, I'd recommend being careful introducing too many technologies! From experience people often don't know them as well as they say thy do and that's the main reason for choosing them. The net result is that you can't reuse existing artifacts and have to write lots more from scratch, and in addition you'll still have some UI using the standard OFBiz tools and it means people maintaining it going forward will have to know or learn about a larger set of tools. -David On Apr 15, 2009, at 1:20 PM, Cimballi wrote: Hi David ! I would not be so stubborn and there can be several reasons why to not use OFBiz on the client side. Imagine you want to provide a web2.0 flashy site to the customer, and you have a killer PHP or JSP developer in your team who can do all the UI stuff. Then, it can be interesting to let him doing his job and then call OFBiz services via RMI or WS. I would not ask to the UI developer to learn OFBiz way to develop UIs, and, even more, OFBiz offers the possibility to call its services remotly. In a project, there are technical reasons, business reasons, and human reasons. The best solution is the best mix of these 3. Don't you think it can be a good alternative ? Cimballi On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 1:57 PM, David E Jones david.jo...@hotwaxmedia.comwrote: Depending on what the more specific requirements are the usual (and by FAR the easiest) way to do this is to use the same software on the ecommerce and back-end servers, but have configuration differences so that only the ecommerce webapp is available on ecommerce sever (ie turn off the other webapps), and only the non-ecommerce applications are enabled on the back-end servers (unless you want to use them for ecommerce staging as well, then you can certainly leave that on, but that server is generally ONLY accessible internally of course). In this scenario all app servers are communicating with the database server and coordinate that way. There is no need for communication between the servers except for the Entity Engine distributed cache clearing. If you use a pattern of a webapp server that talks to an app server that talks to a database you have an extra level of remote communications and that will significantly slow down your response times... as well as add the need for LOTS of coding! There is only one reason I know of for doing such things: a very stubborn person with his hands on the purse strings. That's it, there is NO good technical or business reason for such things. Some claim greater scalability, but real-world testing proves otherwise. -David On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Vince Clark wrote: Our client has a requirement to deploy their ecommerce storefront on a physically separate server from the back office apps. We have been experimenting with other frameworks and integrating via web services for some time, and this requirement pushes up the urgency. Options we are considering: • Use OFBiz MVC framework to build the ecommerce site and deploy it on a separate server. Use RMI to communicate between two OFBiz instances. • Tapestry - Java based, so maybe RMI is still an option. But not sure if that really makes it any easier than using web services. • Symfony - we have prototyped this and exposed things like user login and shopping cart via web services on the OFBiz side. Have tested this with Axis2 and Mule. • DJango - Just looking into this. Our primary motivation for going with Symfony or DJango is to keep the web tier as light weight as possible. It would be all about presentation, and would consume all functionality from OFBiz. Looking forward to feedback from the community on this topic.
Re: best web framework
Another alternative to RMI is JSON. We use the JSON library that comes with ofbiz to make ofbiz service calls. The library converts the results from the service to a json string. This can be easily parsed by an AJax client or java client. Rmi is ok but a little heavy for our needs. There were also serialization problems when using eclipse for debugging and ant for builds. Brett On 4/15/09, David E Jones david.jo...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: If you can share your experiences with that it would be great! Whatever the case, I hope your use of OFBiz is working well for you, and feedback (or contribution... ;) ) of things to improve in the project to make how you are using it easier is always welcome. -David On Apr 15, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Cimballi wrote: Ok, thanks for your comments. As I said before, here we are developing a site this way (using RMI), so when it will be ready, I will post a feedback on the list. Cimballi On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 2:32 PM, David E Jones david.jo...@hotwaxmedia.comwrote: That sounds like a different scenario. Naturally if you change the requirements the solution should be different! In that case you'd have the front-end running on the client talking to the ecommerce webapp server, which would probably be best just talking to the database. That's different from have the main HTML generation using mostly OOTB stuff talking via RMI to yet another app server that then talks to the database. On a side note, I'd recommend being careful introducing too many technologies! From experience people often don't know them as well as they say thy do and that's the main reason for choosing them. The net result is that you can't reuse existing artifacts and have to write lots more from scratch, and in addition you'll still have some UI using the standard OFBiz tools and it means people maintaining it going forward will have to know or learn about a larger set of tools. -David On Apr 15, 2009, at 1:20 PM, Cimballi wrote: Hi David ! I would not be so stubborn and there can be several reasons why to not use OFBiz on the client side. Imagine you want to provide a web2.0 flashy site to the customer, and you have a killer PHP or JSP developer in your team who can do all the UI stuff. Then, it can be interesting to let him doing his job and then call OFBiz services via RMI or WS. I would not ask to the UI developer to learn OFBiz way to develop UIs, and, even more, OFBiz offers the possibility to call its services remotly. In a project, there are technical reasons, business reasons, and human reasons. The best solution is the best mix of these 3. Don't you think it can be a good alternative ? Cimballi On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 1:57 PM, David E Jones david.jo...@hotwaxmedia.comwrote: Depending on what the more specific requirements are the usual (and by FAR the easiest) way to do this is to use the same software on the ecommerce and back-end servers, but have configuration differences so that only the ecommerce webapp is available on ecommerce sever (ie turn off the other webapps), and only the non-ecommerce applications are enabled on the back-end servers (unless you want to use them for ecommerce staging as well, then you can certainly leave that on, but that server is generally ONLY accessible internally of course). In this scenario all app servers are communicating with the database server and coordinate that way. There is no need for communication between the servers except for the Entity Engine distributed cache clearing. If you use a pattern of a webapp server that talks to an app server that talks to a database you have an extra level of remote communications and that will significantly slow down your response times... as well as add the need for LOTS of coding! There is only one reason I know of for doing such things: a very stubborn person with his hands on the purse strings. That's it, there is NO good technical or business reason for such things. Some claim greater scalability, but real-world testing proves otherwise. -David On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Vince Clark wrote: Our client has a requirement to deploy their ecommerce storefront on a physically separate server from the back office apps. We have been experimenting with other frameworks and integrating via web services for some time, and this requirement pushes up the urgency. Options we are considering: • Use OFBiz MVC framework to build the ecommerce site and deploy it on a separate server. Use RMI to communicate between two OFBiz instances. • Tapestry - Java based, so maybe RMI is still an option. But not sure if that really makes it any easier than using web services. • Symfony - we have prototyped this and exposed things like user login and shopping cart via web services on the OFBiz side. Have tested this with Axis2 and Mule. • DJango - Just looking into this. Our
Re: best web framework
As you mentioned RMI and WS, I guess you forgot to list your No.1 reason: security. :) Regards, Shi Jinghai/Beijing Langhua Ltd. 在 2009-04-15三的 14:20 -0500，Cimballi写道： Hi David ! I would not be so stubborn and there can be several reasons why to not use OFBiz on the client side. Imagine you want to provide a web2.0 flashy site to the customer, and you have a killer PHP or JSP developer in your team who can do all the UI stuff. Then, it can be interesting to let him doing his job and then call OFBiz services via RMI or WS. I would not ask to the UI developer to learn OFBiz way to develop UIs, and, even more, OFBiz offers the possibility to call its services remotly. In a project, there are technical reasons, business reasons, and human reasons. The best solution is the best mix of these 3. Don't you think it can be a good alternative ? Cimballi On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 1:57 PM, David E Jones david.jo...@hotwaxmedia.comwrote: Depending on what the more specific requirements are the usual (and by FAR the easiest) way to do this is to use the same software on the ecommerce and back-end servers, but have configuration differences so that only the ecommerce webapp is available on ecommerce sever (ie turn off the other webapps), and only the non-ecommerce applications are enabled on the back-end servers (unless you want to use them for ecommerce staging as well, then you can certainly leave that on, but that server is generally ONLY accessible internally of course). In this scenario all app servers are communicating with the database server and coordinate that way. There is no need for communication between the servers except for the Entity Engine distributed cache clearing. If you use a pattern of a webapp server that talks to an app server that talks to a database you have an extra level of remote communications and that will significantly slow down your response times... as well as add the need for LOTS of coding! There is only one reason I know of for doing such things: a very stubborn person with his hands on the purse strings. That's it, there is NO good technical or business reason for such things. Some claim greater scalability, but real-world testing proves otherwise. -David On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Vince Clark wrote: Our client has a requirement to deploy their ecommerce storefront on a physically separate server from the back office apps. We have been experimenting with other frameworks and integrating via web services for some time, and this requirement pushes up the urgency. Options we are considering: • Use OFBiz MVC framework to build the ecommerce site and deploy it on a separate server. Use RMI to communicate between two OFBiz instances. • Tapestry - Java based, so maybe RMI is still an option. But not sure if that really makes it any easier than using web services. • Symfony - we have prototyped this and exposed things like user login and shopping cart via web services on the OFBiz side. Have tested this with Axis2 and Mule. • DJango - Just looking into this. Our primary motivation for going with Symfony or DJango is to keep the web tier as light weight as possible. It would be all about presentation, and would consume all functionality from OFBiz. Looking forward to feedback from the community on this topic.
What is functionality of OrderItemAndShipGroupAssoc?
Dear all, Sorry if my question a little bit annoying for you. I am curious about the functionality of OrderItemAndShipGroupAssoc's view-entity. What does it mean for sales order process, for OrderItem entity,etc. If we can get the data from OrderItem and OrderItemShipGroupAssoc, why we still need to access OrderItemAndShipGroupAssoc? I'm trying to read the quick ship entire order at this moment, and I can't figure out some steps of the process. Thank a lot for the answer. rgds Hari Plaikoil -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/What-is-functionality-of-OrderItemAndShipGroupAssoc--tp23070656p23070656.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: What is functionality of OrderItemAndShipGroupAssoc?
https://demo.ofbiz.org/webtools/control/ArtifactInfo type in quickship will show you all the screens, services, etc, connected with quick ship. https://demo.ofbiz.org/webtools/control/ViewRelations?entityName=OrderItemShipGroupAssoc shows you the relationships. OrderItem is just part of the view. not sure if you asking about entities in general. depends what what your requirements are. Hari Plaikoil sent the following on 4/15/2009 8:04 PM: Dear all, Sorry if my question a little bit annoying for you. I am curious about the functionality of OrderItemAndShipGroupAssoc's view-entity. What does it mean for sales order process, for OrderItem entity,etc. If we can get the data from OrderItem and , why we still need to access OrderItemAndShipGroupAssoc? I'm trying to read the quick ship entire order at this moment, and I can't figure out some steps of the process. Thank a lot for the answer. rgds Hari Plaikoil
