Party Classification Groups and Link Party
Hi All, Could any one explain me the usage of Party Classification group functionality and Link Party functionality in OFBiz Thanks, Naveen Chanda -- View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Party-Classification-Groups-and-Link-Party-tp276770p276770.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Ofbiz Pentaho integration
Only this http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/0AI Jacques From: Ponnulakshmi Sivakumar aparna...@gmail.com Hi Can anyone suggest how to integrate ofbiz with pentaho reporting tool. thanx Ponnulakshmi S Formative Software Solutions.
Re: Requests and Quotes SFA Manager
Hi Jacques, No, I hadn't come around to that. I looked at it from a business perspective. But will look at the technical side as soon as possible. Regards, Pierre 2009/10/25 Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Hi Pierre, I think I understand now. You are not speaking about OFBiz Entities right ? Have you had a look at CustRequest... and SalesOpportunity... entities and their relations ? Jacques From: Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com Hi Jacques, I guess that I was a bit off Like I said, an opportunity and a request (by a customers/account) are two of the same.That are the entities that I meant. Each request (RFI, RFQ, RFSup, etc) can be regarded as an opportunity that can be fulfilled by the company. So, in my opinion these two types of entities could be combined and both fill the pipeline. Until they result in an order, or are lost, they can be regarded as one and the same. Regards, Pierre 2009/10/24 Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Pierre, You stated below that these two entities should be combined. But which Entities ? :o) Jacques From: Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com Hi Jacques, My apologies, but what are you relating your question to? It's a bit vague for me at the moment. Regards, Pierre 2009/10/23 Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Hi Pierre, What is the name of your Request entity ? Jacques From: Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com Pondering on opportunities and request I think that any type of request is an opportunity. Otherwise they were orders, no? So these two entities should be combined. 2009/10/21 Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com Hi Jacques, You are on the money there. I think that the ecommerce solution in OfBIZ can be regarded as Best in Class. And with a little effort the CRM/SFA module can be the same. Most of the functionalities, as you pointed out, are already in place. It is just bringing it together. Having that it will drive the acceptance of a good CRM/SFA solution for customers and can/will lead to having a better acceptance of OfBIZ as a whole (both from customer and developer (SI) point of view). Therefore I would also advice to split up the Marketing module in a MARCOM application (which is more about marketing and communication - with their own business processes) and a CRM application (which is by most perceived as SFA). In my opinion the CRM/SFA should be the starting point for getting all the info of an account/prospect/customer regarding: Opportunities, Request Orders Contacts etc. When the page of an account is shown the focus should also be on how to contact the account (contact mechs) and the associated contacts (showing phone and email contact mechs). The SFA officials should be able to create, read, update and delete from there. But also security solutions should be up to specs. I also think that the starterpage of SFA should have some charts showing the pipeline of all account opportunities (maybe that is some BI-functionality). This functionality could then also be shown on the profile of the account., including showing total value of sales of YtD, and last year. It's the simple things that make it (life also) better to bear. Regards, Pierre PS Could you (and others) also comment on my email regarding Market Segment Sales Segment? 2009/10/20 Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Hi Pierre, Yes it sounds like a reasonnable requirement to me. Some of the problems we get when trying to convince prospects to use OFBiz is that they want something like SugarCRM. Almost all is there, but not as easy as in SugarCRM... I guess that's why Opentaps was created in the 1st place, because Si quickly identified the need and filled it. BTW, I think we miss after sales features in OFBiz (like tokens in SugarCRM). This could certainly be implemented using what exists already in OFBiz (ie we don't need much changes in the data model if any, using workeffort for instance) but has still to be done at the UI level. A prospective customer (French international enterprise of middle size) told me recently that he would prefer to have an easier to use SFA/CRM than an accounting module, because he has already his own accouting system and do not want to change. Also he wondered how much changes would be implied if ever he would like to change, because he think the accouting module is formated to US practices. I don't think so (I think it's general enough and may be quickly adapted) but as I have not worked much with the OFBiz accouting system yet, I had not much arguments to expose, and was not even quite sure of them. So I ask accouting specialists : what is your point of view on this aspect ? My 2cts Jacques From: Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com Hi All, Shouldn't requests, quotes and the like be visible from the SFA Manager? And should
Re: EntitySync issues suggestions ( was EntitySync RMI error )
Hi Deyan, Did you work on this ? I will need to use EntitySync soon and I know you are not the 1st to complain about it (Si Chen did for instance). On the other hand, some seems to have used it successfully... Thanks Jacques - Original Message - From: Deyan Tsvetanov To: Jacques Le Roux ; user@ofbiz.apache.org Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 10:57 AM Subject: EntitySync issues suggestions ( was EntitySync RMI error ) Hi Jacques and list, After playing for almost 2 weeks with the entity sync feature I've come up with the conclusion that it still needs some work to get ready for production environment. Currently it is unreliable, and useless :( - There is a bug in the design. The MCS remembers the sync status and currently reached sync timestamp for each client. This is not a good approach imho. Why ? The client asks the server: have you got something for me ? Next: The MCS checks the last successful sync timestamp for that particular client and selects the entities that should be passed to the client. After successfully transferring the entities to the client over RMI the MCS assumes that the sync is successful and updates the last successful sync timestamp. The problem is that the client does not confirm the success of the operation. If for some reason the client is unable to update the entities ( either shutdown, power failure, DB error or whatever ) the MCS isn't aware of that and the next sync will not include the missed entities. There is no way to fix the skipped entities but re-creating the client's database from zero. That is the main issue actually. It could be easily solved however. The most easy ways are: 1) The client will remember the sync timestamp and will include it as an argument when asking the server for pull sync. This way the client will update the last successful sync timestamp after storing each entity. The server does not have to remember anything regarding the client's sync status. 2) After each sync session the server will wait for confirmation from the client before updating the last successful sync timestamp. If not updated than the sync process is considered to be unsuccessful and the timestamp will not be updated. I personally prefer approach 1) as in case of network error, power failure or whatever error the sync process will continue from the place it has stopped. - There are some swallowed exceptions. If a network problem occurs during the sync process the server's status remains sync running and the client is not able to sync anymore until the status is reset by an operator. - The last issue is the performance. Using RMI is an easy approach from developer's perspective but it is very very slow. I had a database with 5000 products. The initial sync took about 2 hours. The hardware is pretty good, the network connection between the MCS and the client ofbiz is about 50 mbits. What if we have 100 000 sales per day ? The sync process will take probably the entire night :) Here I would suggest transferring GenericEntity instances over RMI to be removed. Instead a regular XML could be used. Either over RMI or SOAP - does not matter. So in general the picture would be: 1) Server does not remember any timestamp for any client. 2) Client calls the pull entity sync RMI ( or soap ) method and passes the entity sync ID and the timestamp of the last successful sync as arguments. Including the timezone of course :) 3) The server generates an XML file for all the entities in that entity sync group using the timestamp provided by the client. 4) Client starts updating the entities described in the received XML line by line. After each entity is updated successfully the timestamp is also updated ( on the client side - the server does not remember any client timestamps ). 5) If a failure occurs in the middle of the update process what we'll have is a sync process completed to like 50%. With the correct timestamp. When the next sync job starts the client will use the timestamp and the server will generate a new XML from the place the sync has failed. Of course an optimization could be used - the XML will be stored in a new db table so the client can continue storing the entities without asking the server to generate something he has already done. Some improvements that could be also useful: 1) The client ofbiz instances have sequence-id-prefix. So when the server is accepting push syncs it could also check the prefixes of the PKs and disallow entities without the correct prefix in the primary key. That's just a cheap insurance against errors :) We don't want store A to make sales on behalf of store B just because somebody made an error while configuring the pos ofbiz instance. 2) A time synchronization mechanism could be also implemented. In general when syncing there is a requirement that the server's and
Re: EntitySync issues suggestions ( was EntitySync RMI error )
Thanks Pankaj, I had not the time to read all your message, very useful I guess. I will post all this (with Deyan's remark too) on Wiki after having done my own opinion... Jacques From: pankaj.j...@lntinfotech.com Hi Deyan n others I have also worked solved many sync problems in ofbiz in my application: 1) As you said while sync is in progress if server crashes, the status in EntitySync table gets in running state and we can't sync further until we manually change it even if we restart server it remains in running state To solve this problem: I created a new entity SyncStatus on client side to maintain the status of sync, in that ist status is Not Started, when service runEntitySync or runPullEntitySync starts I set the status of field as running and when service returns (whether fail or successful) I updated status to finish. I also added code, that if server restarts and if this field status is running change it to not started, By this I solved the above problem: *) If client crashes, then after restart, status in SyncStatus table will be Not Started. *) If server crashes, then service will be failed and status will be finished and no further problem. 2) There were other problems like if sync(push or pull) is running, and one other job of same service is also created then we get exception An instance is already running By using above status in SyncStatus table when A job of sync is running, I just cancelled out all other jobs of same type. 3) I also solved Connection refused problem by same method even I displayed message on screen rather than giving exception on console. 4) I did not get your point of updating time stamp, I did not get this problem because In push or pull sync the successful timestamp is updated on EntitySync table on client or MCS side only if sync is successful, if server crashes or sync fails this field is not updated, but yes there are some issues: *) If we have 2 hours of sync, n sync fails on last minute. then in next sync as sync successful status has not been revisesd, next sync will pick the status of previous one, as a solution I think we need to keep updating syn status in EntitySync table after particular intervals. but how to decide these intervals b'coz tables are linked with foreign key constriants. *) One problem with connection refused in push and pull case is that, In pull sync first connection is established then data is prepared for sync while in push sync first data is prepared and then conncetion is established. So in pull sync we get connection refused problem in earlier stage than push sync. We can say in push sync if there is no MCS (Or MCS IP address is wrong), Our code is doing efforts in preparing data that effort is of no use. 5) If we place order on POS side and try to perform push sync, some time I was getting random exceptions due to order header or Order Status table, I solved the problem. Explain: In placing order (or others) if you have used a database trigger (eecas) like if an entry is created on A table create an entry on B table. Now wile sync if MCS is also having same trigger then as a entry is created (by sync) on A table , trigger is fired and an entry for B is created. Now for one A, B will be having two entries that creates random exception So I want to ask, that mean for sync there should not be ant trigger on opposite side(means for push MCS and for pull POS), how we will maintain that ??? I did not get your concept of using XML file inspite of RMI. Could you please give some details regarding that Even I agree with the fact that RMI takes long time. Regards: Pankaj Jain __
Re: permission error on cancel order item from ecommerce
Hi All, Any thoughts on this ? Jacques, should I proceed with the overriding service patch ? On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Abdullah Shaikh abdullah.sha...@viithiisys.com wrote: Yes, I guess maybe this is the only solution for this, should I submit the overriding service patch for this or should I wait for some more ideas to pour in for this ? On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: Abdullah, Yes, overriding the service without permission check only for ecommerce use seems the better choise IMO Jacques From: Abdullah Shaikh abdullah.sha...@viithiisys.com If I cancel an order item from ecommerce. I get, the below error displayed on the page. The Following Errors Occurred: Unable to cancel order line : WSCO11640 / 1 / null Note to test this you need to take the latest update of apply this patch https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2408. Below is the error trace from console, this error is because the party (customer) doesn't have the ORDERMGR_CREATE or ORDERMGR_ADMIN permission, but we can't give this permission to a customer, further as the common service is called from ecommerce and order manager for cancel, the solution will be to check the party's role, if its a CUSTOMER, then I guess we can use the SYSTEM user in place of the PARTY(CUSTOMER), for this we need to give ORDERMGR permission to the SYSTEM user. But then it will seem as if the SYSTEM user has cancelled the order and not the CUSTOMER ? Another solution will be to override the service without permission check only for ecommerce use.
Re: permission error on cancel order item from ecommerce
My first thought without looking at it is that the permission checking service should be improved to allow the order placing party to invoke the service. I don't personally think a separate service definition is the way to go. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/10/2009, at 8:43 PM, Abdullah Shaikh wrote: Hi All, Any thoughts on this ? Jacques, should I proceed with the overriding service patch ? On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Abdullah Shaikh abdullah.sha...@viithiisys.com wrote: Yes, I guess maybe this is the only solution for this, should I submit the overriding service patch for this or should I wait for some more ideas to pour in for this ? On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: Abdullah, Yes, overriding the service without permission check only for ecommerce use seems the better choise IMO Jacques From: Abdullah Shaikh abdullah.sha...@viithiisys.com If I cancel an order item from ecommerce. I get, the below error displayed on the page. The Following Errors Occurred: Unable to cancel order line : WSCO11640 / 1 / null Note to test this you need to take the latest update of apply this patch https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2408. Below is the error trace from console, this error is because the party (customer) doesn't have the ORDERMGR_CREATE or ORDERMGR_ADMIN permission, but we can't give this permission to a customer, further as the common service is called from ecommerce and order manager for cancel, the solution will be to check the party's role, if its a CUSTOMER, then I guess we can use the SYSTEM user in place of the PARTY(CUSTOMER), for this we need to give ORDERMGR permission to the SYSTEM user. But then it will seem as if the SYSTEM user has cancelled the order and not the CUSTOMER ? Another solution will be to override the service without permission check only for ecommerce use. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Ofbiz Pentaho integration
Ponnulakshmi Sivakumar a écrit : Hi Can anyone suggest how to integrate ofbiz with pentaho reporting tool. thanx Ponnulakshmi S Formative Software Solutions. Hi, We have integrated mondrian/Jpivot on OFBiz. You can get it here : http://addons.neogia.org/addons/mondrian-3.1/ Nicolas
Re: permission error on cancel order item from ecommerce
Yes, it's ok on my side Jacques From: Abdullah Shaikh abdullah.sha...@viithiisys.com Hi All, Any thoughts on this ? Jacques, should I proceed with the overriding service patch ? On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Abdullah Shaikh abdullah.sha...@viithiisys.com wrote: Yes, I guess maybe this is the only solution for this, should I submit the overriding service patch for this or should I wait for some more ideas to pour in for this ? On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: Abdullah, Yes, overriding the service without permission check only for ecommerce use seems the better choise IMO Jacques From: Abdullah Shaikh abdullah.sha...@viithiisys.com If I cancel an order item from ecommerce. I get, the below error displayed on the page. The Following Errors Occurred: Unable to cancel order line : WSCO11640 / 1 / null Note to test this you need to take the latest update of apply this patch https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2408. Below is the error trace from console, this error is because the party (customer) doesn't have the ORDERMGR_CREATE or ORDERMGR_ADMIN permission, but we can't give this permission to a customer, further as the common service is called from ecommerce and order manager for cancel, the solution will be to check the party's role, if its a CUSTOMER, then I guess we can use the SYSTEM user in place of the PARTY(CUSTOMER), for this we need to give ORDERMGR permission to the SYSTEM user. But then it will seem as if the SYSTEM user has cancelled the order and not the CUSTOMER ? Another solution will be to override the service without permission check only for ecommerce use.
Re: permission error on cancel order item from ecommerce
Hi Scott, Yes, I too thought of improving the already implemented service, I always have that as a first preference, and all should, to make more better code. Now coming back to the issue, below is what I have already comment in previous post. This error is because the party (customer) doesn't have the ORDERMGR_CREATE or ORDERMGR_ADMIN permission, but we can't give this permission to a customer, further as the common service is called from ecommerce and order manager for cancel, the solution will be to check the party's role, if its a CUSTOMER, then I guess we can use the SYSTEM user in place of the PARTY(CUSTOMER), for this we need to give ORDERMGR permission to the SYSTEM user. But then it will seem as if the SYSTEM user has cancelled the order and not the CUSTOMER ? The only thought that came to my mind to improve the permission check service is as above, but then I guess it will lead to some other issues. - Abdullah On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.comwrote: My first thought without looking at it is that the permission checking service should be improved to allow the order placing party to invoke the service. I don't personally think a separate service definition is the way to go. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/10/2009, at 8:43 PM, Abdullah Shaikh wrote: Hi All, Any thoughts on this ? Jacques, should I proceed with the overriding service patch ? On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Abdullah Shaikh abdullah.sha...@viithiisys.com wrote: Yes, I guess maybe this is the only solution for this, should I submit the overriding service patch for this or should I wait for some more ideas to pour in for this ? On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: Abdullah, Yes, overriding the service without permission check only for ecommerce use seems the better choise IMO Jacques From: Abdullah Shaikh abdullah.sha...@viithiisys.com If I cancel an order item from ecommerce. I get, the below error displayed on the page. The Following Errors Occurred: Unable to cancel order line : WSCO11640 / 1 / null Note to test this you need to take the latest update of apply this patch https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2408. Below is the error trace from console, this error is because the party (customer) doesn't have the ORDERMGR_CREATE or ORDERMGR_ADMIN permission, but we can't give this permission to a customer, further as the common service is called from ecommerce and order manager for cancel, the solution will be to check the party's role, if its a CUSTOMER, then I guess we can use the SYSTEM user in place of the PARTY(CUSTOMER), for this we need to give ORDERMGR permission to the SYSTEM user. But then it will seem as if the SYSTEM user has cancelled the order and not the CUSTOMER ? Another solution will be to override the service without permission check only for ecommerce use.
Need Help for rounding problem
Hi, We are showing products with VAT included. Following are the details: *Price of product without Tax:* 34.78 *% Vat:* 15% *Price of Product after Tax:* 39.997 *Price of Product after Tax on product detail screen when rounded to 2 decimals:* 40 (as last decimal is 7 its rounded up) *Suppose user add 2 products to cart, then the total price of product will be:* 79.994 *Price shown on Cart screen and Checkout screen is*: 79.99 (as last decimal is 4). In the above example if customer add single product to cart price will be 40 but for 2 product it will be 79.99. What is required is that first single product price is calculated and then quantity should be multiplied so that customer can see the price in multiple of 40. Please help me on this. Regards, Abhishake
Re: Ofbiz Pentaho integration
Hi Nicolas Is it an add on for OFBiz or for Neogia? Is it distributed under the Apache License? I couldn't find a license in the download and your website seems to be broken. Thanks Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/10/2009, at 9:02 PM, Nicolas Malin wrote: Ponnulakshmi Sivakumar a écrit : Hi Can anyone suggest how to integrate ofbiz with pentaho reporting tool. thanx Ponnulakshmi S Formative Software Solutions. Hi, We have integrated mondrian/Jpivot on OFBiz. You can get it here : http://addons.neogia.org/addons/mondrian-3.1/ Nicolas smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Need Help for rounding problem
Hi, Actually toScale of bigdecimal is already implemented which take value from arithmetic.properties. I have tried various combination in arithmetic.properties its not working, The reason is what ofbiz does is first calculate the total price of same product(i.e. if there are 2 same items ) and then its add the tax. Regards, Abhishake On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Bhupendra Shivade bhupendra_shiv...@mindtree.com wrote: Use Bigdecimal toScale method. -Original Message- From: Abhishake Agarwal [mailto:abhishake.agar...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:38 PM To: user@ofbiz.apache.org Subject: Need Help for rounding problem Hi, We are showing products with VAT included. Following are the details: *Price of product without Tax:* 34.78 *% Vat:* 15% *Price of Product after Tax:* 39.997 *Price of Product after Tax on product detail screen when rounded to 2 decimals:* 40 (as last decimal is 7 its rounded up) *Suppose user add 2 products to cart, then the total price of product will be:* 79.994 *Price shown on Cart screen and Checkout screen is*: 79.99 (as last decimal is 4). In the above example if customer add single product to cart price will be 40 but for 2 product it will be 79.99. What is required is that first single product price is calculated and then quantity should be multiplied so that customer can see the price in multiple of 40. Please help me on this. Regards, Abhishake http://www.mindtree.com/email/disclaimer.html
Re: permission error on cancel order item from ecommerce
Why do we need to use the system userlogin? If we change the permission check to allow the placing party authorization then we shouldn't need to switch anything. This type of situation is handled in a few places around OFBiz, I would suggest that you find and take a look at them (which is what I would have to do to answer any more questions :-) Regards Scott On 26/10/2009, at 9:05 PM, Abdullah Shaikh wrote: Hi Scott, Yes, I too thought of improving the already implemented service, I always have that as a first preference, and all should, to make more better code. Now coming back to the issue, below is what I have already comment in previous post. This error is because the party (customer) doesn't have the ORDERMGR_CREATE or ORDERMGR_ADMIN permission, but we can't give this permission to a customer, further as the common service is called from ecommerce and order manager for cancel, the solution will be to check the party's role, if its a CUSTOMER, then I guess we can use the SYSTEM user in place of the PARTY(CUSTOMER), for this we need to give ORDERMGR permission to the SYSTEM user. But then it will seem as if the SYSTEM user has cancelled the order and not the CUSTOMER ? The only thought that came to my mind to improve the permission check service is as above, but then I guess it will lead to some other issues. - Abdullah On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: My first thought without looking at it is that the permission checking service should be improved to allow the order placing party to invoke the service. I don't personally think a separate service definition is the way to go. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/10/2009, at 8:43 PM, Abdullah Shaikh wrote: Hi All, Any thoughts on this ? Jacques, should I proceed with the overriding service patch ? On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Abdullah Shaikh abdullah.sha...@viithiisys.com wrote: Yes, I guess maybe this is the only solution for this, should I submit the overriding service patch for this or should I wait for some more ideas to pour in for this ? On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: Abdullah, Yes, overriding the service without permission check only for ecommerce use seems the better choise IMO Jacques From: Abdullah Shaikh abdullah.sha...@viithiisys.com If I cancel an order item from ecommerce. I get, the below error displayed on the page. The Following Errors Occurred: Unable to cancel order line : WSCO11640 / 1 / null Note to test this you need to take the latest update of apply this patch https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2408. Below is the error trace from console, this error is because the party (customer) doesn't have the ORDERMGR_CREATE or ORDERMGR_ADMIN permission, but we can't give this permission to a customer, further as the common service is called from ecommerce and order manager for cancel, the solution will be to check the party's role, if its a CUSTOMER, then I guess we can use the SYSTEM user in place of the PARTY(CUSTOMER), for this we need to give ORDERMGR permission to the SYSTEM user. But then it will seem as if the SYSTEM user has cancelled the order and not the CUSTOMER ? Another solution will be to override the service without permission check only for ecommerce use. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: permission error on cancel order item from ecommerce
ok, I will take a look, can you please point to one of them, if you have any in mind. Also, I didn't get what you meant by change the permission check to allow the placing party authorization, can you please explain a bit more ? On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.comwrote: Why do we need to use the system userlogin? If we change the permission check to allow the placing party authorization then we shouldn't need to switch anything. This type of situation is handled in a few places around OFBiz, I would suggest that you find and take a look at them (which is what I would have to do to answer any more questions :-) Regards Scott On 26/10/2009, at 9:05 PM, Abdullah Shaikh wrote: Hi Scott, Yes, I too thought of improving the already implemented service, I always have that as a first preference, and all should, to make more better code. Now coming back to the issue, below is what I have already comment in previous post. This error is because the party (customer) doesn't have the ORDERMGR_CREATE or ORDERMGR_ADMIN permission, but we can't give this permission to a customer, further as the common service is called from ecommerce and order manager for cancel, the solution will be to check the party's role, if its a CUSTOMER, then I guess we can use the SYSTEM user in place of the PARTY(CUSTOMER), for this we need to give ORDERMGR permission to the SYSTEM user. But then it will seem as if the SYSTEM user has cancelled the order and not the CUSTOMER ? The only thought that came to my mind to improve the permission check service is as above, but then I guess it will lead to some other issues. - Abdullah On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: My first thought without looking at it is that the permission checking service should be improved to allow the order placing party to invoke the service. I don't personally think a separate service definition is the way to go. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/10/2009, at 8:43 PM, Abdullah Shaikh wrote: Hi All, Any thoughts on this ? Jacques, should I proceed with the overriding service patch ? On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Abdullah Shaikh abdullah.sha...@viithiisys.com wrote: Yes, I guess maybe this is the only solution for this, should I submit the overriding service patch for this or should I wait for some more ideas to pour in for this ? On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: Abdullah, Yes, overriding the service without permission check only for ecommerce use seems the better choise IMO Jacques From: Abdullah Shaikh abdullah.sha...@viithiisys.com If I cancel an order item from ecommerce. I get, the below error displayed on the page. The Following Errors Occurred: Unable to cancel order line : WSCO11640 / 1 / null Note to test this you need to take the latest update of apply this patch https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2408. Below is the error trace from console, this error is because the party (customer) doesn't have the ORDERMGR_CREATE or ORDERMGR_ADMIN permission, but we can't give this permission to a customer, further as the common service is called from ecommerce and order manager for cancel, the solution will be to check the party's role, if its a CUSTOMER, then I guess we can use the SYSTEM user in place of the PARTY(CUSTOMER), for this we need to give ORDERMGR permission to the SYSTEM user. But then it will seem as if the SYSTEM user has cancelled the order and not the CUSTOMER ? Another solution will be to override the service without permission check only for ecommerce use.
Re: Catalog Manager Challenge: Configurable Products
HI Ruth, Could you tell us more about this ? URL used at least, maybe screen, form, service, etc. Thanks Jacques From: Ruth Hoffman rhoff...@aesolves.com Hello List: I would like to add to this original post that in older, 4x versions of OFBiz, there existed a form to create a configuration item as an existing PRODUCT. Regards, Ruth Ruth Hoffman wrote: Hello List: Given the current trunk version (823826) of OFBiz, how does one create a configurable product consisting of other products? Using just the Catalog Manager, there does not seem to be any way to associate a configurable item as an existing PRODUCT. There is a way to list existing configuration items that are PRODUCTS (as in the PC001 PRODUCT), but no way to add new configurable items and preserve any PRODUCT information about that item. What am I missing here? Do I need to use some other Catalog Manager interface? Regards, Ruth Ruth Hoffman, Author, Mentor OFBiz Enthusiast ruth.hoff...@myofbiz.com Looking for more OFBiz info, please visit my website: http://www.myofbiz.com
Re: Searches done by default
Scott, I did not find enough time for that. This idea cames to me after a short test of SugarCRM last version. I think we could show results by default in SFA at least. There should not be too much results, and with the new length parameter Bruno is working on, this should improve user experience. This because it seems that some decision-makers began to look at OFBiz from the CRM/SFA perspective. We should take care of their expericen, most of the time they decide of our future... Jacques From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com Could you provide an example search form where this might be useful? Perhaps talking about specific forms might be more helpful. I will try tomorrow to explain why, I must admit I have not yet considered the how Jacques I have no problem with OFBiz being set one way or the other but making it configurable seems like a lot for little return. Regards Scott On 13/10/2009, at 10:37 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Not only people evaluating OFBiz, but also people dealing with small numbers. Maybe this should not be applied to all searches, though. Remember, OFBiz was set this way not so long ago. Jacques From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com -1, that sounds like a lot of work and additional complexity and for what? So that people evaluating OFBiz don't have to click on a search button in order to do a search? I'm sorry but it really makes no sense to me. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 13/10/2009, at 9:51 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Also in the case of searching by default, the search fields should be visible (it's no obvious as it's only a string in the screenlet title) From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Hi, OOTB, we decided to not do searches by default when a page containing one is opened (I was for this decision) I wonder if we should not parametrize this in the DB and let it available in the My Portal Préférences ? Then we could set it to yes by default and avoid people evaluating OFBiz to clic on search button each time they open a such page. We could also have an URL going to the preferences in each search to allow a quick change if needed This is not related to lookup dialog boxes but only searches in plain pages. What do you think ? Jacques
Re: Ofbiz Pentaho integration
Hi Scott All Neogia features are in progress to be transformed as addons to be used by OFBiz. It's easier for us to create Jira issues, and if an improvement isn't accepted (as PartyName), it's still possible to keep it as an addon. So yes it's OFBiz addon. The license is by addon, for mondrian, I check the addon.xml and says : licenses license nameApache 2/name urlhttp://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt/url /license /licenses But mondrian license is EPL. The website works, probably dns problem ? Nicolas Scott Gray a écrit : Hi Nicolas Is it an add on for OFBiz or for Neogia? Is it distributed under the Apache License? I couldn't find a license in the download and your website seems to be broken. Thanks Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/10/2009, at 9:02 PM, Nicolas Malin wrote: Ponnulakshmi Sivakumar a écrit : Hi Can anyone suggest how to integrate ofbiz with pentaho reporting tool. thanx Ponnulakshmi S Formative Software Solutions. Hi, We have integrated mondrian/Jpivot on OFBiz. You can get it here : http://addons.neogia.org/addons/mondrian-3.1/ Nicolas
Re: Need Help for rounding problem
Not much time, but maybe related to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-224 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1007 HTH Jacques From: Abhishake Agarwal abhishake.agar...@gmail.com Hi, We are showing products with VAT included. Following are the details: *Price of product without Tax:* 34.78 *% Vat:* 15% *Price of Product after Tax:* 39.997 *Price of Product after Tax on product detail screen when rounded to 2 decimals:* 40 (as last decimal is 7 its rounded up) *Suppose user add 2 products to cart, then the total price of product will be:* 79.994 *Price shown on Cart screen and Checkout screen is*: 79.99 (as last decimal is 4). In the above example if customer add single product to cart price will be 40 but for 2 product it will be 79.99. What is required is that first single product price is calculated and then quantity should be multiplied so that customer can see the price in multiple of 40. Please help me on this. Regards, Abhishake
Re: Ofbiz Pentaho integration
EPL is ok http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b But anyway seems only for Ponnulakshmi for now... Jacques From: Nicolas Malin malin.nico...@librenberry.net Hi Scott All Neogia features are in progress to be transformed as addons to be used by OFBiz. It's easier for us to create Jira issues, and if an improvement isn't accepted (as PartyName), it's still possible to keep it as an addon. So yes it's OFBiz addon. The license is by addon, for mondrian, I check the addon.xml and says : licenses license nameApache 2/name urlhttp://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt/url /license /licenses But mondrian license is EPL. The website works, probably dns problem ? Nicolas Scott Gray a écrit : Hi Nicolas Is it an add on for OFBiz or for Neogia? Is it distributed under the Apache License? I couldn't find a license in the download and your website seems to be broken. Thanks Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/10/2009, at 9:02 PM, Nicolas Malin wrote: Ponnulakshmi Sivakumar a écrit : Hi Can anyone suggest how to integrate ofbiz with pentaho reporting tool. thanx Ponnulakshmi S Formative Software Solutions. Hi, We have integrated mondrian/Jpivot on OFBiz. You can get it here : http://addons.neogia.org/addons/mondrian-3.1/ Nicolas
Re: Ofbiz Pentaho integration
Hi Thanx for your inputs. I shall look into it and get back. reg Ponnulakshmi S. On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Nicolas Malin malin.nico...@librenberry.net wrote: Ponnulakshmi Sivakumar a écrit : Hi Can anyone suggest how to integrate ofbiz with pentaho reporting tool. thanx Ponnulakshmi S Formative Software Solutions. Hi, We have integrated mondrian/Jpivot on OFBiz. You can get it here : http://addons.neogia.org/addons/mondrian-3.1/ Nicolas
Re: permission error on cancel order item from ecommerce
Okay I did the search :-) Check out partyContactMechPermissionCheck and note it's usage in the service defs with the permission-service element. Regards Scott On 26/10/2009, at 9:31 PM, Abdullah Shaikh wrote: ok, I will take a look, can you please point to one of them, if you have any in mind. Also, I didn't get what you meant by change the permission check to allow the placing party authorization, can you please explain a bit more ? On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: Why do we need to use the system userlogin? If we change the permission check to allow the placing party authorization then we shouldn't need to switch anything. This type of situation is handled in a few places around OFBiz, I would suggest that you find and take a look at them (which is what I would have to do to answer any more questions :-) Regards Scott On 26/10/2009, at 9:05 PM, Abdullah Shaikh wrote: Hi Scott, Yes, I too thought of improving the already implemented service, I always have that as a first preference, and all should, to make more better code. Now coming back to the issue, below is what I have already comment in previous post. This error is because the party (customer) doesn't have the ORDERMGR_CREATE or ORDERMGR_ADMIN permission, but we can't give this permission to a customer, further as the common service is called from ecommerce and order manager for cancel, the solution will be to check the party's role, if its a CUSTOMER, then I guess we can use the SYSTEM user in place of the PARTY(CUSTOMER), for this we need to give ORDERMGR permission to the SYSTEM user. But then it will seem as if the SYSTEM user has cancelled the order and not the CUSTOMER ? The only thought that came to my mind to improve the permission check service is as above, but then I guess it will lead to some other issues. - Abdullah On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: My first thought without looking at it is that the permission checking service should be improved to allow the order placing party to invoke the service. I don't personally think a separate service definition is the way to go. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/10/2009, at 8:43 PM, Abdullah Shaikh wrote: Hi All, Any thoughts on this ? Jacques, should I proceed with the overriding service patch ? On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Abdullah Shaikh abdullah.sha...@viithiisys.com wrote: Yes, I guess maybe this is the only solution for this, should I submit the overriding service patch for this or should I wait for some more ideas to pour in for this ? On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: Abdullah, Yes, overriding the service without permission check only for ecommerce use seems the better choise IMO Jacques From: Abdullah Shaikh abdullah.sha...@viithiisys.com If I cancel an order item from ecommerce. I get, the below error displayed on the page. The Following Errors Occurred: Unable to cancel order line : WSCO11640 / 1 / null Note to test this you need to take the latest update of apply this patch https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2408. Below is the error trace from console, this error is because the party (customer) doesn't have the ORDERMGR_CREATE or ORDERMGR_ADMIN permission, but we can't give this permission to a customer, further as the common service is called from ecommerce and order manager for cancel, the solution will be to check the party's role, if its a CUSTOMER, then I guess we can use the SYSTEM user in place of the PARTY(CUSTOMER), for this we need to give ORDERMGR permission to the SYSTEM user. But then it will seem as if the SYSTEM user has cancelled the order and not the CUSTOMER ? Another solution will be to override the service without permission check only for ecommerce use. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Searches done by default
I was just trying to point out that it's usefulness decreases exponentially as the number of pages in the result set increases (i.e. the likelihood that you will find what you are looking for on the first page). IMO it only really makes sense when the list is ordered by the newest record first such as orders, tasks, emails, etc. I personally don't really care either way, I just feel that the effort required to make it configurable outweighs the benefits. If the list should show results then just show them and if it shouldn't then don't, why bother with all the extra work of making it configurable just because the developers disagree on which is the best approach. BTW, SugarCRM is one of many popular CRM suites out there and I don't think that just because they do something a certain way makes that approach the best one :-) Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/10/2009, at 9:34 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Scott, I did not find enough time for that. This idea cames to me after a short test of SugarCRM last version. I think we could show results by default in SFA at least. There should not be too much results, and with the new length parameter Bruno is working on, this should improve user experience. This because it seems that some decision-makers began to look at OFBiz from the CRM/SFA perspective. We should take care of their expericen, most of the time they decide of our future... Jacques From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com Could you provide an example search form where this might be useful? Perhaps talking about specific forms might be more helpful. I will try tomorrow to explain why, I must admit I have not yet considered the how Jacques I have no problem with OFBiz being set one way or the other but making it configurable seems like a lot for little return. Regards Scott On 13/10/2009, at 10:37 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Not only people evaluating OFBiz, but also people dealing with small numbers. Maybe this should not be applied to all searches, though. Remember, OFBiz was set this way not so long ago. Jacques From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com -1, that sounds like a lot of work and additional complexity and for what? So that people evaluating OFBiz don't have to click on a search button in order to do a search? I'm sorry but it really makes no sense to me. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 13/10/2009, at 9:51 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Also in the case of searching by default, the search fields should be visible (it's no obvious as it's only a string in the screenlet title) From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Hi, OOTB, we decided to not do searches by default when a page containing one is opened (I was for this decision) I wonder if we should not parametrize this in the DB and let it available in the My Portal Préférences ? Then we could set it to yes by default and avoid people evaluating OFBiz to clic on search button each time they open a such page. We could also have an URL going to the preferences in each search to allow a quick change if needed This is not related to lookup dialog boxes but only searches in plain pages. What do you think ? Jacques smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: permission error on cancel order item from ecommerce
Scott, I had a look at it and I guess this should work, I will try it out later in the day and let you know. Thanks for pointing On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.comwrote: Okay I did the search :-) Check out partyContactMechPermissionCheck and note it's usage in the service defs with the permission-service element. Regards Scott On 26/10/2009, at 9:31 PM, Abdullah Shaikh wrote: ok, I will take a look, can you please point to one of them, if you have any in mind. Also, I didn't get what you meant by change the permission check to allow the placing party authorization, can you please explain a bit more ? On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: Why do we need to use the system userlogin? If we change the permission check to allow the placing party authorization then we shouldn't need to switch anything. This type of situation is handled in a few places around OFBiz, I would suggest that you find and take a look at them (which is what I would have to do to answer any more questions :-) Regards Scott On 26/10/2009, at 9:05 PM, Abdullah Shaikh wrote: Hi Scott, Yes, I too thought of improving the already implemented service, I always have that as a first preference, and all should, to make more better code. Now coming back to the issue, below is what I have already comment in previous post. This error is because the party (customer) doesn't have the ORDERMGR_CREATE or ORDERMGR_ADMIN permission, but we can't give this permission to a customer, further as the common service is called from ecommerce and order manager for cancel, the solution will be to check the party's role, if its a CUSTOMER, then I guess we can use the SYSTEM user in place of the PARTY(CUSTOMER), for this we need to give ORDERMGR permission to the SYSTEM user. But then it will seem as if the SYSTEM user has cancelled the order and not the CUSTOMER ? The only thought that came to my mind to improve the permission check service is as above, but then I guess it will lead to some other issues. - Abdullah On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: My first thought without looking at it is that the permission checking service should be improved to allow the order placing party to invoke the service. I don't personally think a separate service definition is the way to go. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/10/2009, at 8:43 PM, Abdullah Shaikh wrote: Hi All, Any thoughts on this ? Jacques, should I proceed with the overriding service patch ? On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Abdullah Shaikh abdullah.sha...@viithiisys.com wrote: Yes, I guess maybe this is the only solution for this, should I submit the overriding service patch for this or should I wait for some more ideas to pour in for this ? On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: Abdullah, Yes, overriding the service without permission check only for ecommerce use seems the better choise IMO Jacques From: Abdullah Shaikh abdullah.sha...@viithiisys.com If I cancel an order item from ecommerce. I get, the below error displayed on the page. The Following Errors Occurred: Unable to cancel order line : WSCO11640 / 1 / null Note to test this you need to take the latest update of apply this patch https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2408. Below is the error trace from console, this error is because the party (customer) doesn't have the ORDERMGR_CREATE or ORDERMGR_ADMIN permission, but we can't give this permission to a customer, further as the common service is called from ecommerce and order manager for cancel, the solution will be to check the party's role, if its a CUSTOMER, then I guess we can use the SYSTEM user in place of the PARTY(CUSTOMER), for this we need to give ORDERMGR permission to the SYSTEM user. But then it will seem as if the SYSTEM user has cancelled the order and not the CUSTOMER ? Another solution will be to override the service without permission check only for ecommerce use.
Re: Searches done by default
BTW I think the absolute best thing we could do to improve search usability is to implement saved searches without a doubt. Regards Scott On 26/10/2009, at 10:37 PM, Scott Gray wrote: I was just trying to point out that it's usefulness decreases exponentially as the number of pages in the result set increases (i.e. the likelihood that you will find what you are looking for on the first page). IMO it only really makes sense when the list is ordered by the newest record first such as orders, tasks, emails, etc. I personally don't really care either way, I just feel that the effort required to make it configurable outweighs the benefits. If the list should show results then just show them and if it shouldn't then don't, why bother with all the extra work of making it configurable just because the developers disagree on which is the best approach. BTW, SugarCRM is one of many popular CRM suites out there and I don't think that just because they do something a certain way makes that approach the best one :-) Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/10/2009, at 9:34 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Scott, I did not find enough time for that. This idea cames to me after a short test of SugarCRM last version. I think we could show results by default in SFA at least. There should not be too much results, and with the new length parameter Bruno is working on, this should improve user experience. This because it seems that some decision-makers began to look at OFBiz from the CRM/SFA perspective. We should take care of their expericen, most of the time they decide of our future... Jacques From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com Could you provide an example search form where this might be useful? Perhaps talking about specific forms might be more helpful. I will try tomorrow to explain why, I must admit I have not yet considered the how Jacques I have no problem with OFBiz being set one way or the other but making it configurable seems like a lot for little return. Regards Scott On 13/10/2009, at 10:37 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Not only people evaluating OFBiz, but also people dealing with small numbers. Maybe this should not be applied to all searches, though. Remember, OFBiz was set this way not so long ago. Jacques From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com -1, that sounds like a lot of work and additional complexity and for what? So that people evaluating OFBiz don't have to click on a search button in order to do a search? I'm sorry but it really makes no sense to me. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 13/10/2009, at 9:51 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Also in the case of searching by default, the search fields should be visible (it's no obvious as it's only a string in the screenlet title) From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Hi, OOTB, we decided to not do searches by default when a page containing one is opened (I was for this decision) I wonder if we should not parametrize this in the DB and let it available in the My Portal Préférences ? Then we could set it to yes by default and avoid people evaluating OFBiz to clic on search button each time they open a such page. We could also have an URL going to the preferences in each search to allow a quick change if needed This is not related to lookup dialog boxes but only searches in plain pages. What do you think ? Jacques smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Searches done by default
Showing default search results is one thing. Enhancing (combining) search posibilities is another. It is al about clicks. Why not have search screens combined (by default) so that users experience an enhanced ease of use. E.g. in party (account, employee, etc) combine the search on party name (first name and/or last name) with details from contact mechs (e.g. country or postal code) beside showing advanced search possibilities. And as far as SugarCRM goes: they have found a nack to deliver what customers want, which among others is an ease of use. So, why not steal with pride and improve. Regards, Pierre PS I did not actually intend to promote theft. E.g in one screen 2009/10/26 Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com BTW I think the absolute best thing we could do to improve search usability is to implement saved searches without a doubt. Regards Scott On 26/10/2009, at 10:37 PM, Scott Gray wrote: I was just trying to point out that it's usefulness decreases exponentially as the number of pages in the result set increases (i.e. the likelihood that you will find what you are looking for on the first page). IMO it only really makes sense when the list is ordered by the newest record first such as orders, tasks, emails, etc. I personally don't really care either way, I just feel that the effort required to make it configurable outweighs the benefits. If the list should show results then just show them and if it shouldn't then don't, why bother with all the extra work of making it configurable just because the developers disagree on which is the best approach. BTW, SugarCRM is one of many popular CRM suites out there and I don't think that just because they do something a certain way makes that approach the best one :-) Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/10/2009, at 9:34 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Scott, I did not find enough time for that. This idea cames to me after a short test of SugarCRM last version. I think we could show results by default in SFA at least. There should not be too much results, and with the new length parameter Bruno is working on, this should improve user experience. This because it seems that some decision-makers began to look at OFBiz from the CRM/SFA perspective. We should take care of their expericen, most of the time they decide of our future... Jacques From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com Could you provide an example search form where this might be useful? Perhaps talking about specific forms might be more helpful. I will try tomorrow to explain why, I must admit I have not yet considered the how Jacques I have no problem with OFBiz being set one way or the other but making it configurable seems like a lot for little return. Regards Scott On 13/10/2009, at 10:37 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Not only people evaluating OFBiz, but also people dealing with small numbers. Maybe this should not be applied to all searches, though. Remember, OFBiz was set this way not so long ago. Jacques From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com -1, that sounds like a lot of work and additional complexity and for what? So that people evaluating OFBiz don't have to click on a search button in order to do a search? I'm sorry but it really makes no sense to me. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 13/10/2009, at 9:51 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Also in the case of searching by default, the search fields should be visible (it's no obvious as it's only a string in the screenlet title) From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Hi, OOTB, we decided to not do searches by default when a page containing one is opened (I was for this decision) I wonder if we should not parametrize this in the DB and let it available in the My Portal Préférences ? Then we could set it to yes by default and avoid people evaluating OFBiz to clic on search button each time they open a such page. We could also have an URL going to the preferences in each search to allow a quick change if needed This is not related to lookup dialog boxes but only searches in plain pages. What do you think ? Jacques
Re: Searches done by default
Yes I agree having set suiting specific lists requirements should be enough. After some practice, I think in certain cases we don't need the general rule don't show results by default I was speaking about SugarCRM only to introduce the idea : influential people (PHB) should be influenced. It's only pragmatic attitude. They don't like to click around while trying a software, they often begin to try OFBiz looking at SFA, well... Make them click less and be happy. For instance they create a lead, and hop, it appears in the list behind : brilliant (isn'it ? ;o) Jacques From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com I was just trying to point out that it's usefulness decreases exponentially as the number of pages in the result set increases (i.e. the likelihood that you will find what you are looking for on the first page). IMO it only really makes sense when the list is ordered by the newest record first such as orders, tasks, emails, etc. I personally don't really care either way, I just feel that the effort required to make it configurable outweighs the benefits. If the list should show results then just show them and if it shouldn't then don't, why bother with all the extra work of making it configurable just because the developers disagree on which is the best approach. BTW, SugarCRM is one of many popular CRM suites out there and I don't think that just because they do something a certain way makes that approach the best one :-) Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/10/2009, at 9:34 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Scott, I did not find enough time for that. This idea cames to me after a short test of SugarCRM last version. I think we could show results by default in SFA at least. There should not be too much results, and with the new length parameter Bruno is working on, this should improve user experience. This because it seems that some decision-makers began to look at OFBiz from the CRM/SFA perspective. We should take care of their expericen, most of the time they decide of our future... Jacques From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com Could you provide an example search form where this might be useful? Perhaps talking about specific forms might be more helpful. I will try tomorrow to explain why, I must admit I have not yet considered the how Jacques I have no problem with OFBiz being set one way or the other but making it configurable seems like a lot for little return. Regards Scott On 13/10/2009, at 10:37 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Not only people evaluating OFBiz, but also people dealing with small numbers. Maybe this should not be applied to all searches, though. Remember, OFBiz was set this way not so long ago. Jacques From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com -1, that sounds like a lot of work and additional complexity and for what? So that people evaluating OFBiz don't have to click on a search button in order to do a search? I'm sorry but it really makes no sense to me. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 13/10/2009, at 9:51 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Also in the case of searching by default, the search fields should be visible (it's no obvious as it's only a string in the screenlet title) From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Hi, OOTB, we decided to not do searches by default when a pagecontaining one is opened (I was for this decision) I wonder if we should not parametrize this in the DB and let it available in the My Portal Préférences ? Then we could set it to yes by default and avoid people evaluating OFBiz to clic on search button each time they open a such page. We could also have an URL going to the preferences in each search to allow a quick change if needed This is not related to lookup dialog boxes but only searches in plain pages. What do you think ? Jacques
Re: Searches done by default
For instance I found the I (Information) icon a good idea in SugarCRM. It only shows contact's contact mechs details on an hover over the icon, but it's convenient. It's all about improving users experience, they really like it (don't you ? ;o) Jacques From: Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com Showing default search results is one thing. Enhancing (combining) search posibilities is another. It is al about clicks. Why not have search screens combined (by default) so that users experience an enhanced ease of use. E.g. in party (account, employee, etc) combine the search on party name (first name and/or last name) with details from contact mechs (e.g. country or postal code) beside showing advanced search possibilities. And as far as SugarCRM goes: they have found a nack to deliver what customers want, which among others is an ease of use. So, why not steal with pride and improve. Regards, Pierre PS I did not actually intend to promote theft. E.g in one screen 2009/10/26 Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com BTW I think the absolute best thing we could do to improve search usability is to implement saved searches without a doubt. Regards Scott On 26/10/2009, at 10:37 PM, Scott Gray wrote: I was just trying to point out that it's usefulness decreases exponentially as the number of pages in the result set increases (i.e. the likelihood that you will find what you are looking for on the first page). IMO it only really makes sense when the list is ordered by the newest record first such as orders, tasks, emails, etc. I personally don't really care either way, I just feel that the effort required to make it configurable outweighs the benefits. If the list should show results then just show them and if it shouldn't then don't, why bother with all the extra work of making it configurable just because the developers disagree on which is the best approach. BTW, SugarCRM is one of many popular CRM suites out there and I don't think that just because they do something a certain way makes that approach the best one :-) Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/10/2009, at 9:34 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Scott, I did not find enough time for that. This idea cames to me after a short test of SugarCRM last version. I think we could show results by default in SFA at least. There should not be too much results, and with the new length parameter Bruno is working on, this should improve user experience. This because it seems that some decision-makers began to look at OFBiz from the CRM/SFA perspective. We should take care of their expericen, most of the time they decide of our future... Jacques From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com Could you provide an example search form where this might be useful? Perhaps talking about specific forms might be more helpful. I will try tomorrow to explain why, I must admit I have not yet considered the how Jacques I have no problem with OFBiz being set one way or the other but making it configurable seems like a lot for little return. Regards Scott On 13/10/2009, at 10:37 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Not only people evaluating OFBiz, but also people dealing with small numbers. Maybe this should not be applied to all searches, though. Remember, OFBiz was set this way not so long ago. Jacques From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com -1, that sounds like a lot of work and additional complexity and for what? So that people evaluating OFBiz don't have to click on a search button in order to do a search? I'm sorry but it really makes no sense to me. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 13/10/2009, at 9:51 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Also in the case of searching by default, the search fields should be visible (it's no obvious as it's only a string in the screenlet title) From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Hi, OOTB, we decided to not do searches by default when a page containing one is opened (I was for this decision) I wonder if we should not parametrize this in the DB and let it available in the My Portal Préférences ? Then we could set it to yes by default and avoid people evaluating OFBiz to clic on search button each time they open a such page. We could also have an URL going to the preferences in each search to allow a quick change if needed This is not related to lookup dialog boxes but only searches in plain pages. What do you think ? Jacques
Re: EntitySync issues suggestions ( was EntitySync RMI error )
Hi Jacques, no, I didn't work on fixing the entity sync issues. Instead I did my own sync tool using db triggers and stored procedures. The entity sync could be fixed, but it would require like two - three weeks of work. I am sorry I didn't post any details, i was kind of busy because of a missed deadline :) The entity sync is kind of useless in this state imho. Reasons: 1) Does not do any fail over - if the sync process is interrupted for any reason - like network outage, or ofbiz restart, or system freeze it will be considered as a success sync and won't continue from the point it has failed. Could be fixed though :) 2) Pretty slow. The entities are transfered over the network using RMI. For transferring 5000 product records ( along with their relations - product_price, product_assoc, etc ) it took over 2 hours using pretty good hard and 50 mbits network connection. 3) The example of entities to sync in the sync howto notes will never work. There will be records with duplicate PKs :) The solution for those issues imho are: 1) Refactor a bit the entity sync code so the client remembers the last successful sync state. This would fix the fail over issues. currently the server ( MCS ) remembers the sync status for each client. 2) Don't use RMI :) It would be much faster if the entities that are going to be transfered in order to get synced are serialized to XML for example and transferred over the network in a text format. RMI is easy to use but has bad performance. Just to give you an example: about 5000 products ( which is probably about 20 000 entities in total to pull ) takes 2 hours on a 50 mbits connection. What if we had a pretty huge supermarket which has 100 000 sales per day ( this means 100 000 sales orders , average 50 order_items per order, 100 000 payments, 100 000 invoices, 100 000 invoice items ). It would require an entire night to sync - if we are lucky :) 3) I can provide the complete list of tables needed to get synced for a POS solution, including fix of the issue with the duplicate PKs :) However for our current project we've used triggers which create a transaction log for push on the POS databases and a transaction log for pull on the MCS instance. Pulling those 5000 products along with all the related records takes about 20 secs on the same hardware. I've configured a crontab job which invoces the sync postgre stored procedures every 5 minutes and it works perfectly. A status table is maintained on the MCS so we can check regularly if a POS hasn't synced for let's say 1 hour - this means either network outage or some other problem. Yes, I know this solution is DB dependent but if the ofbiz sync framework issues are fixed and we use the list of tables to sync i've managed to create something useful could come out of it :) So - i hope my e-mail answers your question, if you want to know more - don't hesitate :) Cheers, Deyan -Original Message- From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Reply-to: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com To: Deyan Tsvetanov deyan.tsveta...@ittconsult.com, user@ofbiz.apache.org Subject: Re: EntitySync issues suggestions ( was EntitySync RMI error ) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:34:51 +0100 Hi Deyan, Did you work on this ? I will need to use EntitySync soon and I know you are not the 1st to complain about it (Si Chen did for instance). On the other hand, some seems to have used it successfully... Thanks Jacques - Original Message - From: Deyan Tsvetanov To: Jacques Le Roux ; user@ofbiz.apache.org Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 10:57 AM Subject: EntitySync issues suggestions ( was EntitySync RMI error ) Hi Jacques and list, After playing for almost 2 weeks with the entity sync feature I've come up with the conclusion that it still needs some work to get ready for production environment. Currently it is unreliable, and useless :( - There is a bug in the design. The MCS remembers the sync status and currently reached sync timestamp for each client. This is not a good approach imho. Why ? The client asks the server: have you got something for me ? Next: The MCS checks the last successful sync timestamp for that particular client and selects the entities that should be passed to the client. After successfully transferring the entities to the client over RMI the MCS assumes that the sync is successful and updates the last successful sync timestamp. The problem is that the client does not confirm the success of the operation. If for some reason the client is unable to update the entities ( either shutdown, power failure, DB error or whatever ) the MCS isn't aware of that and the next sync will not include the missed entities.
Re: EntitySync issues suggestions ( was EntitySync RMI error )
Thanks for comment Deyan, I will try Pankaj Jain's tips in a 1st time Jacques From: Deyan Tsvetanov deyan.tsveta...@ittconsult.com Hi Jacques, no, I didn't work on fixing the entity sync issues. Instead I did my own sync tool using db triggers and stored procedures. The entity sync could be fixed, but it would require like two - three weeks of work. I am sorry I didn't post any details, i was kind of busy because of a missed deadline :) The entity sync is kind of useless in this state imho. Reasons: 1) Does not do any fail over - if the sync process is interrupted for any reason - like network outage, or ofbiz restart, or system freeze it will be considered as a success sync and won't continue from the point it has failed. Could be fixed though :) 2) Pretty slow. The entities are transfered over the network using RMI. For transferring 5000 product records ( along with their relations - product_price, product_assoc, etc ) it took over 2 hours using pretty good hard and 50 mbits network connection. 3) The example of entities to sync in the sync howto notes will never work. There will be records with duplicate PKs :) The solution for those issues imho are: 1) Refactor a bit the entity sync code so the client remembers the last successful sync state. This would fix the fail over issues. currently the server ( MCS ) remembers the sync status for each client. 2) Don't use RMI :) It would be much faster if the entities that are going to be transfered in order to get synced are serialized to XML for example and transferred over the network in a text format. RMI is easy to use but has bad performance. Just to give you an example: about 5000 products ( which is probably about 20 000 entities in total to pull ) takes 2 hours on a 50 mbits connection. What if we had a pretty huge supermarket which has 100 000 sales per day ( this means 100 000 sales orders , average 50 order_items per order, 100 000 payments, 100 000 invoices, 100 000 invoice items ). It would require an entire night to sync - if we are lucky :) 3) I can provide the complete list of tables needed to get synced for a POS solution, including fix of the issue with the duplicate PKs :) However for our current project we've used triggers which create a transaction log for push on the POS databases and a transaction log for pull on the MCS instance. Pulling those 5000 products along with all the related records takes about 20 secs on the same hardware. I've configured a crontab job which invoces the sync postgre stored procedures every 5 minutes and it works perfectly. A status table is maintained on the MCS so we can check regularly if a POS hasn't synced for let's say 1 hour - this means either network outage or some other problem. Yes, I know this solution is DB dependent but if the ofbiz sync framework issues are fixed and we use the list of tables to sync i've managed to create something useful could come out of it :) So - i hope my e-mail answers your question, if you want to know more - don't hesitate :) Cheers, Deyan -Original Message- From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Reply-to: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com To: Deyan Tsvetanov deyan.tsveta...@ittconsult.com, user@ofbiz.apache.org Subject: Re: EntitySync issues suggestions ( was EntitySync RMI error ) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:34:51 +0100 Hi Deyan, Did you work on this ? I will need to use EntitySync soon and I know you are not the 1st to complain about it (Si Chen did for instance). On the other hand, some seems to have used it successfully... Thanks Jacques - Original Message - From: Deyan Tsvetanov To: Jacques Le Roux ; user@ofbiz.apache.org Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 10:57 AM Subject: EntitySync issues suggestions ( was EntitySync RMI error ) Hi Jacques and list, After playing for almost 2 weeks with the entity sync feature I've come up with the conclusion that it still needs some work to get ready for production environment. Currently it is unreliable, and useless :( - There is a bug in the design. The MCS remembers the sync status and currently reached sync timestamp for each client. This is not a good approach imho. Why ? The client asks the server: have you got something for me ? Next: The MCS checks the last successful sync timestamp for that particular client and selects the entities that should be passed to the client. After successfully transferring the entities to the client over RMI the MCS assumes that the sync is successful and updates the last successful sync timestamp. The problem is that the client does not confirm the success of the operation. If for some reason the client is unable to update the entities ( either shutdown, power failure, DB error or whatever ) the MCS isn't aware of that and the next sync will not
Re: SQL Exception when running ant run-install for CREATE INDEX SURVEY on an IBM iSeries
Just tried from a clean (ant clean-all) updated (svn up) Ubuntu 8.04 box to potsgres 8.4 (ant run-install) on Windows XP, no problems at all. Jacques From: Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com I am having the same issue in a multi-tier setup against postgresql 8.3 on ubuntu. Is this a common issue in multi-tier setups? (I don't have the issue when the db resides on the same machine as ofbiz is... Regards, Pierre 2009/9/12 Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com FYI : I do not find this message in the log of run-install on Windows XpSp3 with Postgres 8.4 svnversion : 814128 Jacques From: Anne Jessel a...@cohsoft.com.au I see the same message with Postgresql 8.3, running java -jar ofbiz.jar -install -readers=seed,seed-initial,ext on a clean database. Cheers, Anne. 2009/9/6 André Herbst a...@softmatic.dk: Hi, I am getting this error when running ant run-install on a clean database schema. 2009-09-05 22:35:43,845 (main) [ DatabaseUtil.java:2929:ERROR] Could not create foreign key indices for entity [WorkEffortSurveyAppl]: SQL Exception while executing the following: CREATE INDEX SURVEY ON OFBIZ.WORK_EFFORT_SURVEY_APPL (SURVEY_ID) Error was: com.ibm.db2.jdbc.app.DB2SQLSyntaxErrorException: SURVEY in OFBIZ of type *FILE already exists. Has anybody else seen this error or is this somehow IBM DB2 related? -André -- Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd PO Box 2773 Cheltenham Vic 3192 Phone: (03) 9585 6788 Fax: (03) 9585 1086 Web: http://www.cohsoft.com.au/ Email: sa...@cohsoft.com.au Bonsai ERP, the all-inclusive ERP system http://www.bonsaierp.com.au/
Re: Searches done by default
Implementing saved searches or what I was used to call filters is on my wish list. I like how jira implements them allowing private or shared/global filters. I would like to share info and requirements about. -Bruno 2009/10/26 Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com: BTW I think the absolute best thing we could do to improve search usability is to implement saved searches without a doubt. Regards Scott On 26/10/2009, at 10:37 PM, Scott Gray wrote: I was just trying to point out that it's usefulness decreases exponentially as the number of pages in the result set increases (i.e. the likelihood that you will find what you are looking for on the first page). IMO it only really makes sense when the list is ordered by the newest record first such as orders, tasks, emails, etc. I personally don't really care either way, I just feel that the effort required to make it configurable outweighs the benefits. If the list should show results then just show them and if it shouldn't then don't, why bother with all the extra work of making it configurable just because the developers disagree on which is the best approach. BTW, SugarCRM is one of many popular CRM suites out there and I don't think that just because they do something a certain way makes that approach the best one :-) Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/10/2009, at 9:34 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Scott, I did not find enough time for that. This idea cames to me after a short test of SugarCRM last version. I think we could show results by default in SFA at least. There should not be too much results, and with the new length parameter Bruno is working on, this should improve user experience. This because it seems that some decision-makers began to look at OFBiz from the CRM/SFA perspective. We should take care of their expericen, most of the time they decide of our future... Jacques From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com Could you provide an example search form where this might be useful? Perhaps talking about specific forms might be more helpful. I will try tomorrow to explain why, I must admit I have not yet considered the how Jacques I have no problem with OFBiz being set one way or the other but making it configurable seems like a lot for little return. Regards Scott On 13/10/2009, at 10:37 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Not only people evaluating OFBiz, but also people dealing with small numbers. Maybe this should not be applied to all searches, though. Remember, OFBiz was set this way not so long ago. Jacques From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com -1, that sounds like a lot of work and additional complexity and for what? So that people evaluating OFBiz don't have to click on a search button in order to do a search? I'm sorry but it really makes no sense to me. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 13/10/2009, at 9:51 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Also in the case of searching by default, the search fields should be visible (it's no obvious as it's only a string in the screenlet title) From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Hi, OOTB, we decided to not do searches by default when a page containing one is opened (I was for this decision) I wonder if we should not parametrize this in the DB and let it available in the My Portal Préférences ? Then we could set it to yes by default and avoid people evaluating OFBiz to clic on search button each time they open a such page. We could also have an URL going to the preferences in each search to allow a quick change if needed This is not related to lookup dialog boxes but only searches in plain pages. What do you think ? Jacques
Re: Question about authorize.net and PCI
Several payment gateways now offer services to store credit card and other customer information. To my knowledge none of the gateway implementations in OFBiz take advantage of this service. - Original Message - From: Scott. sc...@anglolimited.com To: user@ofbiz.apache.org Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 2:49:05 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain Subject: Re: Question about authorize.net and PCI Thanks to all for the help. Its much appreciatd. Scott. sent the following on 10/22/2009 8:47 AM: Hello all, We are very close to finalizing our method of credit card processing within ofbiz and of course, PCI compliance is taking a front seat. We will be using authorize.net as our gateway and they several different methods with regards to integration. The easy thing would be to use the current supported method but my preference would be to not store credit card info at all. They are the Simple Checkout, Server Integration Method (SIM) and the Advanced Integration Method (AIM). I believe that ofbiz natively supports AIM. The main difference between the three is that from a PCI standpoint the simple and the SIM method store the credit card data on the Authorize.Net PCI-compliant servers thus eliminate the PCI compliance for our company. If I am correct, the SIM method keeps your checkout pages looking the way they were designed and being able to use the native ofbiz to actually charge authorizations, etc. Has anyone implemented this with ofbiz successfully? How much trouble will be to modify the ofbiz payment services not to store/read any sensitive credit card information. Thanks in advance for any thoughts. -- BJ Freeman http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation http://bjfreeman.elance.com http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=key=1237480locale=en_UStrk=tab_pro Systems Integrator. -- View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Question-about-authorize-net-and-PCI-tp276274p276544.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Catalog Manager Challenge: Configurable Products
Hi Jacques: I just tried this with the BlueLight theme installed on a very recent version of OFBiz and it appears I misspoke - at least as regards to the BlueLight theme. My original question came when I was using the Bizzness theme. I'll go back and check out that theme and see if I just couldn't find this feature or if, in fact it isn't there. Thanks for looking into this. Ruth Jacques Le Roux wrote: HI Ruth, Could you tell us more about this ? URL used at least, maybe screen, form, service, etc. Thanks Jacques From: Ruth Hoffman rhoff...@aesolves.com Hello List: I would like to add to this original post that in older, 4x versions of OFBiz, there existed a form to create a configuration item as an existing PRODUCT. Regards, Ruth Ruth Hoffman wrote: Hello List: Given the current trunk version (823826) of OFBiz, how does one create a configurable product consisting of other products? Using just the Catalog Manager, there does not seem to be any way to associate a configurable item as an existing PRODUCT. There is a way to list existing configuration items that are PRODUCTS (as in the PC001 PRODUCT), but no way to add new configurable items and preserve any PRODUCT information about that item. What am I missing here? Do I need to use some other Catalog Manager interface? Regards, Ruth Ruth Hoffman, Author, Mentor OFBiz Enthusiast ruth.hoff...@myofbiz.com Looking for more OFBiz info, please visit my website: http://www.myofbiz.com
Re: Searches done by default
Just a quick reminder: displaying the search results by default is already configurable on a per-server basis. Look in widgets.properties for the setting. Saving search criteria would be easy using the user preferences feature. Just use the name of the search criteria container as a key, and use the parameters as the value. -Adrian Bruno Busco wrote: Implementing saved searches or what I was used to call filters is on my wish list. I like how jira implements them allowing private or shared/global filters. I would like to share info and requirements about. -Bruno 2009/10/26 Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com: BTW I think the absolute best thing we could do to improve search usability is to implement saved searches without a doubt. Regards Scott On 26/10/2009, at 10:37 PM, Scott Gray wrote: I was just trying to point out that it's usefulness decreases exponentially as the number of pages in the result set increases (i.e. the likelihood that you will find what you are looking for on the first page). IMO it only really makes sense when the list is ordered by the newest record first such as orders, tasks, emails, etc. I personally don't really care either way, I just feel that the effort required to make it configurable outweighs the benefits. If the list should show results then just show them and if it shouldn't then don't, why bother with all the extra work of making it configurable just because the developers disagree on which is the best approach. BTW, SugarCRM is one of many popular CRM suites out there and I don't think that just because they do something a certain way makes that approach the best one :-) Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/10/2009, at 9:34 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Scott, I did not find enough time for that. This idea cames to me after a short test of SugarCRM last version. I think we could show results by default in SFA at least. There should not be too much results, and with the new length parameter Bruno is working on, this should improve user experience. This because it seems that some decision-makers began to look at OFBiz from the CRM/SFA perspective. We should take care of their expericen, most of the time they decide of our future... Jacques From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com Could you provide an example search form where this might be useful? Perhaps talking about specific forms might be more helpful. I will try tomorrow to explain why, I must admit I have not yet considered the how Jacques I have no problem with OFBiz being set one way or the other but making it configurable seems like a lot for little return. Regards Scott On 13/10/2009, at 10:37 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Not only people evaluating OFBiz, but also people dealing with small numbers. Maybe this should not be applied to all searches, though. Remember, OFBiz was set this way not so long ago. Jacques From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com -1, that sounds like a lot of work and additional complexity and for what? So that people evaluating OFBiz don't have to click on a search button in order to do a search? I'm sorry but it really makes no sense to me. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 13/10/2009, at 9:51 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Also in the case of searching by default, the search fields should be visible (it's no obvious as it's only a string in the screenlet title) From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Hi, OOTB, we decided to not do searches by default when a page containing one is opened (I was for this decision) I wonder if we should not parametrize this in the DB and let it available in the My Portal Préférences ? Then we could set it to yes by default and avoid people evaluating OFBiz to clic on search button each time they open a such page. We could also have an URL going to the preferences in each search to allow a quick change if needed This is not related to lookup dialog boxes but only searches in plain pages. What do you think ? Jacques
Re: Searches done by default
Thank you Adrian for the hint on the saving search criteria. It makes great sense to me. -Bruno 2009/10/26 Adrian Crum adri...@hlmksw.com: Just a quick reminder: displaying the search results by default is already configurable on a per-server basis. Look in widgets.properties for the setting. Saving search criteria would be easy using the user preferences feature. Just use the name of the search criteria container as a key, and use the parameters as the value. -Adrian Bruno Busco wrote: Implementing saved searches or what I was used to call filters is on my wish list. I like how jira implements them allowing private or shared/global filters. I would like to share info and requirements about. -Bruno 2009/10/26 Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com: BTW I think the absolute best thing we could do to improve search usability is to implement saved searches without a doubt. Regards Scott On 26/10/2009, at 10:37 PM, Scott Gray wrote: I was just trying to point out that it's usefulness decreases exponentially as the number of pages in the result set increases (i.e. the likelihood that you will find what you are looking for on the first page). IMO it only really makes sense when the list is ordered by the newest record first such as orders, tasks, emails, etc. I personally don't really care either way, I just feel that the effort required to make it configurable outweighs the benefits. If the list should show results then just show them and if it shouldn't then don't, why bother with all the extra work of making it configurable just because the developers disagree on which is the best approach. BTW, SugarCRM is one of many popular CRM suites out there and I don't think that just because they do something a certain way makes that approach the best one :-) Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/10/2009, at 9:34 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Scott, I did not find enough time for that. This idea cames to me after a short test of SugarCRM last version. I think we could show results by default in SFA at least. There should not be too much results, and with the new length parameter Bruno is working on, this should improve user experience. This because it seems that some decision-makers began to look at OFBiz from the CRM/SFA perspective. We should take care of their expericen, most of the time they decide of our future... Jacques From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com Could you provide an example search form where this might be useful? Perhaps talking about specific forms might be more helpful. I will try tomorrow to explain why, I must admit I have not yet considered the how Jacques I have no problem with OFBiz being set one way or the other but making it configurable seems like a lot for little return. Regards Scott On 13/10/2009, at 10:37 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Not only people evaluating OFBiz, but also people dealing with small numbers. Maybe this should not be applied to all searches, though. Remember, OFBiz was set this way not so long ago. Jacques From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com -1, that sounds like a lot of work and additional complexity and for what? So that people evaluating OFBiz don't have to click on a search button in order to do a search? I'm sorry but it really makes no sense to me. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 13/10/2009, at 9:51 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Also in the case of searching by default, the search fields should be visible (it's no obvious as it's only a string in the screenlet title) From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Hi, OOTB, we decided to not do searches by default when a page containing one is opened (I was for this decision) I wonder if we should not parametrize this in the DB and let it available in the My Portal Préférences ? Then we could set it to yes by default and avoid people evaluating OFBiz to clic on search button each time they open a such page. We could also have an URL going to the preferences in each search to allow a quick change if needed This is not related to lookup dialog boxes but only searches in plain pages. What do you think ? Jacques
Re: Searches done by default
Thank you Adrian also for the per-server setting reminder! But I guess it's not enough as we may have a lot orders, or parties, etc. but shall still want to see list of contacts, leads, etc. in SFA after add or modification Jacques From: Bruno Busco bruno.bu...@gmail.com Thank you Adrian for the hint on the saving search criteria. It makes great sense to me. -Bruno 2009/10/26 Adrian Crum adri...@hlmksw.com: Just a quick reminder: displaying the search results by default is already configurable on a per-server basis. Look in widgets.properties for the setting. Saving search criteria would be easy using the user preferences feature. Just use the name of the search criteria container as a key, and use the parameters as the value. -Adrian Bruno Busco wrote: Implementing saved searches or what I was used to call filters is on my wish list. I like how jira implements them allowing private or shared/global filters. I would like to share info and requirements about. -Bruno 2009/10/26 Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com: BTW I think the absolute best thing we could do to improve search usability is to implement saved searches without a doubt. Regards Scott On 26/10/2009, at 10:37 PM, Scott Gray wrote: I was just trying to point out that it's usefulness decreases exponentially as the number of pages in the result set increases (i.e. the likelihood that you will find what you are looking for on the first page). IMO it only really makes sense when the list is ordered by the newest record first such as orders, tasks, emails, etc. I personally don't really care either way, I just feel that the effort required to make it configurable outweighs the benefits. If the list should show results then just show them and if it shouldn't then don't, why bother with all the extra work of making it configurable just because the developers disagree on which is the best approach. BTW, SugarCRM is one of many popular CRM suites out there and I don't think that just because they do something a certain way makes that approach the best one :-) Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 26/10/2009, at 9:34 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Scott, I did not find enough time for that. This idea cames to me after a short test of SugarCRM last version. I think we could show results by default in SFA at least. There should not be too much results, and with the new length parameter Bruno is working on, this should improve user experience. This because it seems that some decision-makers began to look at OFBiz from the CRM/SFA perspective. We should take care of their expericen, most of the time they decide of our future... Jacques From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com Could you provide an example search form where this might be useful? Perhaps talking about specific forms might be more helpful. I will try tomorrow to explain why, I must admit I have not yet considered the how Jacques I have no problem with OFBiz being set one way or the other but making it configurable seems like a lot for little return. Regards Scott On 13/10/2009, at 10:37 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Not only people evaluating OFBiz, but also people dealing with small numbers. Maybe this should not be applied to all searches, though. Remember, OFBiz was set this way not so long ago. Jacques From: Scott Gray scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com -1, that sounds like a lot of work and additional complexity and for what? So that people evaluating OFBiz don't have to click on a search button in order to do a search? I'm sorry but it really makes no sense to me. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 13/10/2009, at 9:51 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Also in the case of searching by default, the search fields should be visible (it's no obvious as it's only a string in the screenlet title) From: Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com Hi, OOTB, we decided to not do searches by default when a page containing one is opened (I was for this decision) I wonder if we should not parametrize this in the DB and let it available in the My Portal Préférences ? Then we could set it to yes by default and avoid people evaluating OFBiz to clic on search button each time they open a such page. We could also have an URL going to the preferences in each search to allow a quick change if needed This is not related to lookup dialog boxes but only searches in plain pages. What do you think ? Jacques
ToolTips superimposes in Flat Gray
Hi, Tooltips looks good in Blue Light but superimpose in Flat Gray (see at bottom of https://localhost:8443/catalog/control/EditProductAssoc?productId=SV-1000) CSS defintions are the same so I guess it's a font issue, any ideas ? Thanks Jacques
Difference between release 9.x and 4.x
Hi, I am a newbie who is starting to explore Ofbiz, but i am confused with two sets of parallel major release numbers release 9.x and release 4.x could you please provide me some information whats the difference between two and which one is latest? Thanks and regards, Deepak
Re: Difference between release 9.x and 4.x
Quick answer http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/Main+New+Features Jacques From: Deepak Gupta deepak.gupt...@gmail.com Hi, I am a newbie who is starting to explore Ofbiz, but i am confused with two sets of parallel major release numbers release 9.x and release 4.x could you please provide me some information whats the difference between two and which one is latest? Thanks and regards, Deepak
Last Sytem Notes appear only when using Flat Grey Theme
Hi, Is it normal that Last Sytem Notes appear only when using Flat Grey Theme ? Jacques
OpenI installation
Hi I have tried downloading OpenI BI tool from the link that u have specified. When I download the packages, I am unable to find the openi-projects.war file in them I have searched in the net for that package but couldnt find one. kindly let me know where to download openi-projects.war. thanx Goutham Formative Software Solutions.
Re: issue in adding security group to a party
Any thoughts on this https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3071 ? On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Abdullah Shaikh abdullah.sha...@viithiisys.com wrote: Patch attached for https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3071 On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Abdullah Shaikh abdullah.sha...@viithiisys.com wrote: I have opened a jira issue for this https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3071 Also will check if there are any more places with the same issue. Regarding user responsibility I guess the system should do how much it can. Abdullah On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote: Please feel free to open a Jira for this, I agree it would be better to assure consistency in 1st place here http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Contributors+Best+Practices On the other hand I wonder if there are not many more places with the same issue... Also some may think that it's the user responsability. There are a lot cases where OFBiz could improve these kind of check... Not sure it's a priority though... Jacques From: Abdullah Shaikh abdullah.sha...@viithiisys.com No its not a bug, if you take a closer look, the fromDate is part of the primary key for entity UserLoginSecurityGroup in which the user security group is mapped, fromDate I guess is a part of primary key because can be assigned a particular security group for a specified period and then maybe reassigned the same security group at a later date. But yes I guess the adding functionality should check if the thruDate is specified, because when reassigning the record should be expired by thruDate or if thruDate is specified then it should be check if its before the fromDate of the new record. On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 5:16 PM, naveenchanda chand...@gmail.com wrote: Dear All, How can i restrict the same security group adding to the party multiple times ? The issue is: Securitygroups Userlogins “ Add UserLogin to Security Group” Click on Add. Adding same group many times is acceting. Is this a bug ? How can i solve the above issue ? Please help me. Thanks, Naveen Chanda -- View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/issue-in-adding-security-group-to-a-party-tp253316p253316.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
