Re: Anyone know of OFBiz ERP in software/consulting companies?
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/IQFk http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/bwFk -- Ashish On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > Does anyone on the list know of an OFBiz ERP implementation in software > product and/or IT consulting companies? > TIA > Ruth >
Re: running error
Are you using OFBiz trunk? Did you do any customization in code? Please provide more details so that we could help you, as I am not observing such behavior on my machine. I am using OFBiz trunk. Thanks! -- Ashish On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 7:38 AM, zhiyongcui wrote: > > As I view the Approved Product Requirements page under requirment in order > component,I got error as below: > Error evaluating BSH scriptlet [ > org.ofbiz.party.party.PartyHelper.getPartyName( > delegator, partyId, false);], inserting nothing; error was: Sourced file: > inline > evaluation of: `` org.ofbiz.party.party.PartyHelper.getPartyName(delegator, > par > tyId, false);'' : Undefined variable or class name while evaluating: > org.ofbiz.p > arty.party.PartyHelper : at Line: 1 : in file: inline evaluation of: `` > org.ofbi > z.party.party.PartyHelper.getPartyName(delegator, partyId, false);'' : org > .ofbi > z .party .party .PartyHelper .getPartyName ( delegator , partyId , false ) > > Exception: bsh.EvalError > Message: Sourced file: inline evaluation of: `` > org.ofbiz.party.party.PartyHelpe > r.getPartyName(delegator, partyId, false);'' : Undefined variable or class > name > while evaluating: org.ofbiz.party.party.PartyHelper > stack trace > --- > > Sourced file: inline evaluation of: `` > org.ofbiz.party.party.PartyHelper.getPart > yName(delegator, partyId, false);'' : Undefined variable or class name while > eva > luating: org.ofbiz.party.party.PartyHelper : at Line: 1 : in file: inline > evalua > tion of: `` org.ofbiz.party.party.PartyHelper.getPartyName(delegator, > partyId, f > alse);'' : org .ofbiz .party .party .PartyHelper .getPartyName ( delegator , > par > tyId , false ) > But I found there is nothing wrong about the PartyHelper class, anyone could > help me? > -- > View this message in context: > http://n4.nabble.com/running-error-tp1401474p1401474.html > Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
Re: How to know what roles allow for which services?
What are you trying to achieve? For more details on services you can refer following documents: Beginner Guide: http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/cQFk Service Engine: http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/M4Br Role Based implementation can be done in Service Implementation itself. For more details please refer following code present in ProductServices.xml line # 841: HTH! -- Ashish On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Patrick wrote: > I need to invoke the service [safeAddProductToCategory], but how do I > know which role to add? Is there a list somewhere? Thanks Patrick >
How to know what roles allow for which services?
I need to invoke the service [safeAddProductToCategory], but how do I know which role to add? Is there a list somewhere? Thanks Patrick
Re: Different order status for COD and CC
My guess is that they want these additional statuses for searching and if that is the case it would be much better to allow searching by payment method type + order status rather than adding custom statuses. Regards Scott On 29/01/2010, at 9:33 AM, Mridul Pathak wrote: > It certainly depends on what status change you want to have, if in both > cases the next status change would be ORBER_APPROVED, then better to > customize the view logic to show different descriptions, instead of creating > new statuses. > > -- > Thanks & Regards > Mridul Pathak > Hotwax Media > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com > mridul.pat...@hotwaxmedia.com > - > direct: +91 - 942.592.6892 > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Ramkrishna Swamy < > ramkrishna.swamyof...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Scott, >> >> What could be possible harm if i do so, i don't have much knowledge of >> OFBiz >> and since it's my client's requirement so i have to follow. >> >> -- >> Thanks >> Ramkrishna >> >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Scott Gray >> wrote: >> >>> I would seriously consider why the same status has to have a different >>> description depending on the payment method type. You're adding >> unnecessary >>> complexity when other simpler approaches could probably achieve the same >>> goal. >>> >>> Regards >>> Scott >>> >>> On 28/01/2010, at 10:12 PM, Ramkrishna Swamy wrote: >>> Hi Scott, Thanks for your reply, i have to set status "Order to be approved" for >>> COD and "Order Placed" for CC instead of "Created", as per my understanding >>> i'll have to create new status and have to call seca for changing the order status while placing the order, is this correct or there is another way >>> to do. -- Thanks Ramkrishna On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Scott Gray < >> scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com wrote: > Start off by setting "Auto Approve Order" on the Product Store to "N" >>> which > will cause all order to remain in the Created status and will need to >> be > manually moved to Approved. > > Regards > Scott > > HotWax Media > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com > > On 28/01/2010, at 12:36 AM, Ramkrishna Swamy wrote: > >> Has anyone idea on this. Plz help. >> >> -- >> Thanks >> Ramkrishna >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Ramkrishna Swamy < >> ramkrishna.swamyof...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi list, >>> >>> I have a requirement of setting different order status, for COD >> status >>> should be "Order to be Approved" and for CC "Order Placed" is >>> required, > and >>> in both cases order will be approved later on, how to implement >> this. >>> >>> Plz help. >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks >>> Ramkrishna >>> > > >>> >>> >> smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Different order status for COD and CC
It certainly depends on what status change you want to have, if in both cases the next status change would be ORBER_APPROVED, then better to customize the view logic to show different descriptions, instead of creating new statuses. -- Thanks & Regards Mridul Pathak Hotwax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com mridul.pat...@hotwaxmedia.com - direct: +91 - 942.592.6892 On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Ramkrishna Swamy < ramkrishna.swamyof...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Scott, > > What could be possible harm if i do so, i don't have much knowledge of > OFBiz > and since it's my client's requirement so i have to follow. > > -- > Thanks > Ramkrishna > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Scott Gray >wrote: > > > I would seriously consider why the same status has to have a different > > description depending on the payment method type. You're adding > unnecessary > > complexity when other simpler approaches could probably achieve the same > > goal. > > > > Regards > > Scott > > > > On 28/01/2010, at 10:12 PM, Ramkrishna Swamy wrote: > > > > > Hi Scott, > > > > > > Thanks for your reply, i have to set status "Order to be approved" for > > COD > > > and "Order Placed" for CC instead of "Created", as per my understanding > > i'll > > > have to create new status and have to call seca for changing the order > > > status while placing the order, is this correct or there is another way > > to > > > do. > > > > > > -- > > > Thanks > > > Ramkrishna > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Scott Gray < > scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com > > >wrote: > > > > > >> Start off by setting "Auto Approve Order" on the Product Store to "N" > > which > > >> will cause all order to remain in the Created status and will need to > be > > >> manually moved to Approved. > > >> > > >> Regards > > >> Scott > > >> > > >> HotWax Media > > >> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com > > >> > > >> On 28/01/2010, at 12:36 AM, Ramkrishna Swamy wrote: > > >> > > >>> Has anyone idea on this. Plz help. > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Thanks > > >>> Ramkrishna > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Ramkrishna Swamy < > > >>> ramkrishna.swamyof...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > > Hi list, > > > > I have a requirement of setting different order status, for COD > status > > should be "Order to be Approved" and for CC "Order Placed" is > > required, > > >> and > > in both cases order will be approved later on, how to implement > this. > > > > Plz help. > > > > -- > > Thanks > > Ramkrishna > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
Re: Any chance for an upgrade? - help please
Hi, It is even worse for me... I dropped the tests regarding apache and I tried tests directly against one ofbiz instance, without any apache in front..using the same apache ab tool. I never exceee 3-4 requests per second :( I tried also to hit one static page and I reach arround 2000 req/sec and for a page with one singe DB access through GenericDelegator I get aprox 1000 req/sec Why for the the entire ecommerce application (actually for its main page where I display few promo products, indeed with some processing for PriceServices) I never get more than 34 requests per second? regards, Florin Florin, Have you tried using Apache's mod_proxy instead of mod_jk? I'm not surprised that you get faster responses directly from Apache but 2-3 req/sec doesn't sound good for Tomcat either. I'll try this same tool in our configuration and see what we get. For us we configure mod_jk to communicate through the ofbiz AJP port. We have also used mod_proxy which doesn't use AJP and goes directly to Tomcat's http port (8080). I'll run your recommended tool to see what gets better performance. Brett On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 6:07 AM, Florin Popa wrote: Hi, It seems I was on a false track... the tests hits directly against ofbiz (without Apache in front) did not work properly.. now they do and I only get max 2-3 req.sec... What could be wrong configured? I tried similar hits against one simple tomcat and on 30 secs I reach 5 req/sec. I only touched this: What else needs to be configured for production load usage to reach more requests per second? The cache is also properly confgured thanks, Florin Florin, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "apache talke with ofbiz instances via AJP rather than mod_jk". I thought mod_jk used AJP. I would be interested if you find that AJP is a bottleneck. We use a configuration with Apache on the front end and ofbiz on behind it. We use mod_jk because it has a nice load balancer feature. We have also used mod_proxy which doesn't use AJP but we haven't done any performance testing to compare the differences between the two. Brett On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Florin Popa wrote: I'll take a look ar Grinder, seems promising, thanks again. Of course life is never easy :) now I have another problem... the network admin configured 2 ofbiz instances having an apache in front of them as balancer.. but apache "talks" with ofbiz instances via AJP rather than mod_jk ..which seems to be a bottleneck.. Have you experienced that kind of things? best regards, Florin Popa The Grinder is a nice tool for such things (and has a nice recording proxy). BTW, make sure to set your HTTP and thread pool sizes adequately for the load you are planning on. -David On Jan 28, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Florin Popa wrote: Thanks everyone for the help! Today we succeeded port to geronimo transaction 2.1 as well as the switch from minerva to DBCP connection pool. It seems much better but I am not fully content :) Maybe because the automated testing tool I am using can not really hit hard enough.. Any recommendation for such tools? Of course upgrade to latest version was scheduled too but this would take longer.. Best regards, Florin You're using a quite old version of OFBiz with the Minerva connection pool (I can tell from the stack trace you sent earlier). The Minerva connection pool has some issues with resetting connections when there are errors, especially if there is any code that doesn't manage errors well, but also if there are network layer issues or other sorts of things... it just doesn't recover at all. You could try making changes to use the Apache DBCP connection pool that we use now in OFBiz. To do so requires some low-level coding. You can look at the current code base for hints, but there is still some work. There are no known workarounds to this issue for really high volume sites, and for low-medium volume sites the workaround was to restart the app server(s) every day. -David On Jan 27, 2010, at 3:01 PM, Florin Popa wrote: I was just asking myself if someone encountered before such problems on older revisions.. Would be Geronimo ok to be used or shall I try something else? regards, Florin I'm sorry the potential for problems with this approach is just too large for me to be able to help you through it. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 27/01/2010, at 1:53 PM, Florin Popa wrote: The attempt to update Ofbiz to recent revision is for the moment (time limits) not possible.. there are so many differences... I am even not sure if bsh could work further instead of the newly groovy ?! also the entity layer handling.. etc So what I tried was to back port the transaction management - latest attempt is attached
Re: OFBiz Blog, Integration 3rd party tools
Hm thats the point. The idea was to run a 3rd party blog in, maybe, an iFrame (i really don't like this idea). So there are two options, to fully integrate a functional blog application or extend/ improve the ofbiz blog. There are pro and cons for both. 2010/1/29 BJ Freeman > If need is to have something functional quickly then I would suggest you > look at the code of the blog, like wordpress, applications then just > post to ofbiz what is needed. the application would not be in ofbiz > workspace. > Like your login. But the rest of the application runs in it own space > and database. > I would then suggest that you look at the blog in ofbiz and how to add > the functionality of the other blogs for long term. > > Sascha Rodekamp sent the following on 1/29/2010 2:09 AM: > > Hi everybody, > > > > i thought of having a full featured blog in my ofbiz application. > > I like to have a blog that has functions like i.e. wordpress, roller. > > The ofbiz blog can't offer me these things :-) > > > > So someone have an idea how to integrate i.e Roller > > http://roller.apache.org/ (because it's java based) > > or some other great blog software in ofbiz? > > > > So long > > Sascha > > > >
Re: Any chance for an upgrade? - help please
Florin, Have you tried using Apache's mod_proxy instead of mod_jk? I'm not surprised that you get faster responses directly from Apache but 2-3 req/sec doesn't sound good for Tomcat either. I'll try this same tool in our configuration and see what we get. For us we configure mod_jk to communicate through the ofbiz AJP port. We have also used mod_proxy which doesn't use AJP and goes directly to Tomcat's http port (8080). I'll run your recommended tool to see what gets better performance. Brett On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 6:07 AM, Florin Popa wrote: > Hi, > > It seems I was on a false track... the tests hits directly against ofbiz > (without Apache in front) did not work properly.. now they do and I only get > max 2-3 req.sec... > > What could be wrong configured? > > I tried similar hits against one simple tomcat and on 30 secs I reach 5 > req/sec. > > I only touched this: > > purge-job-days="4" >failed-retry-min="3" >ttl="18" >wait-millis="750" >jobs="500" >min-threads="50" >max-threads="500" >poll-enabled="true" >poll-db-millis="2"> > > > > > What else needs to be configured for production load usage to reach more > requests per second? > > The cache is also properly confgured > > > thanks, > Florin > > Florin, >> >> I'm not sure what you mean when you say "apache talke with ofbiz instances >> via AJP rather than mod_jk". I thought mod_jk used AJP. >> >> I would be interested if you find that AJP is a bottleneck. We use a >> configuration with Apache on the front end and ofbiz on behind it. We use >> mod_jk because it has a nice load balancer feature. We have also used >> mod_proxy which doesn't use AJP but we haven't done any performance >> testing >> to compare the differences between the two. >> >> Brett >> >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Florin Popa > >wrote: >> >> >> >>> I'll take a look ar Grinder, seems promising, thanks again. >>> >>> Of course life is never easy :) now I have another problem... the network >>> admin configured 2 ofbiz instances having an apache in front of them as >>> balancer.. but apache "talks" with ofbiz instances via AJP rather than >>> mod_jk ..which seems to be a bottleneck.. >>> Have you experienced that kind of things? >>> >>> best regards, >>> Florin Popa >>> >>> >>> >>> The Grinder is a nice tool for such things (and has a nice recording >>> >>> proxy). BTW, make sure to set your HTTP and thread pool sizes adequately for the load you are planning on. -David On Jan 28, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Florin Popa wrote: > Thanks everyone for the help! > > Today we succeeded port to geronimo transaction 2.1 as well as the > switch > from minerva to DBCP connection pool. It seems much better but I am not > fully content :) > Maybe because the automated testing tool I am using can not really hit > hard enough.. > > Any recommendation for such tools? > > > Of course upgrade to latest version was scheduled too but this would > take > longer.. > > Best regards, > Florin > > > > >> You're using a quite old version of OFBiz with the Minerva connection >> pool (I can tell from the stack trace you sent earlier). The Minerva >> connection pool has some issues with resetting connections when there >> are >> errors, especially if there is any code that doesn't manage errors >> well, but >> also if there are network layer issues or other sorts of things... it >> just >> doesn't recover at all. >> >> You could try making changes to use the Apache DBCP connection pool >> that >> we use now in OFBiz. To do so requires some low-level coding. You can >> look >> at the current code base for hints, but there is still some work. >> >> There are no known workarounds to this issue for really high volume >> sites, and for low-medium volume sites the workaround was to restart >> the app >> server(s) every day. >> >> -David >> >> >> On Jan 27, 2010, at 3:01 PM, Florin Popa wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> I was just asking myself if someone encountered before such problems >>> on >>> older revisions.. >>> >>> Would be Geronimo ok to be used or shall I try something else? >>> >>> regards, >>> Florin >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm sorry the potential for problems with this approach is just too large for me to be able to help you through it. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 27/01/2010, at 1:53 PM, Florin Popa wrote: > The
Re: Any chance for an upgrade? - help please
Hi, It seems I was on a false track... the tests hits directly against ofbiz (without Apache in front) did not work properly.. now they do and I only get max 2-3 req.sec... What could be wrong configured? I tried similar hits against one simple tomcat and on 30 secs I reach 5 req/sec. I only touched this: What else needs to be configured for production load usage to reach more requests per second? The cache is also properly confgured thanks, Florin Florin, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "apache talke with ofbiz instances via AJP rather than mod_jk". I thought mod_jk used AJP. I would be interested if you find that AJP is a bottleneck. We use a configuration with Apache on the front end and ofbiz on behind it. We use mod_jk because it has a nice load balancer feature. We have also used mod_proxy which doesn't use AJP but we haven't done any performance testing to compare the differences between the two. Brett On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Florin Popa wrote: I'll take a look ar Grinder, seems promising, thanks again. Of course life is never easy :) now I have another problem... the network admin configured 2 ofbiz instances having an apache in front of them as balancer.. but apache "talks" with ofbiz instances via AJP rather than mod_jk ..which seems to be a bottleneck.. Have you experienced that kind of things? best regards, Florin Popa The Grinder is a nice tool for such things (and has a nice recording proxy). BTW, make sure to set your HTTP and thread pool sizes adequately for the load you are planning on. -David On Jan 28, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Florin Popa wrote: Thanks everyone for the help! Today we succeeded port to geronimo transaction 2.1 as well as the switch from minerva to DBCP connection pool. It seems much better but I am not fully content :) Maybe because the automated testing tool I am using can not really hit hard enough.. Any recommendation for such tools? Of course upgrade to latest version was scheduled too but this would take longer.. Best regards, Florin You're using a quite old version of OFBiz with the Minerva connection pool (I can tell from the stack trace you sent earlier). The Minerva connection pool has some issues with resetting connections when there are errors, especially if there is any code that doesn't manage errors well, but also if there are network layer issues or other sorts of things... it just doesn't recover at all. You could try making changes to use the Apache DBCP connection pool that we use now in OFBiz. To do so requires some low-level coding. You can look at the current code base for hints, but there is still some work. There are no known workarounds to this issue for really high volume sites, and for low-medium volume sites the workaround was to restart the app server(s) every day. -David On Jan 27, 2010, at 3:01 PM, Florin Popa wrote: I was just asking myself if someone encountered before such problems on older revisions.. Would be Geronimo ok to be used or shall I try something else? regards, Florin I'm sorry the potential for problems with this approach is just too large for me to be able to help you through it. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 27/01/2010, at 1:53 PM, Florin Popa wrote: The attempt to update Ofbiz to recent revision is for the moment (time limits) not possible.. there are so many differences... I am even not sure if bsh could work further instead of the newly groovy ?! also the entity layer handling.. etc So what I tried was to back port the transaction management - latest attempt is attached
Re: OFBiz Blog, Integration 3rd party tools
If need is to have something functional quickly then I would suggest you look at the code of the blog, like wordpress, applications then just post to ofbiz what is needed. the application would not be in ofbiz workspace. Like your login. But the rest of the application runs in it own space and database. I would then suggest that you look at the blog in ofbiz and how to add the functionality of the other blogs for long term. Sascha Rodekamp sent the following on 1/29/2010 2:09 AM: > Hi everybody, > > i thought of having a full featured blog in my ofbiz application. > I like to have a blog that has functions like i.e. wordpress, roller. > The ofbiz blog can't offer me these things :-) > > So someone have an idea how to integrate i.e Roller > http://roller.apache.org/ (because it's java based) > or some other great blog software in ofbiz? > > So long > Sascha >
Re: Different order status for COD and CC
I had a client that added 35 statuses. but it is not part of the svn, for the very reason Scott said. so feel free to add the functionality to your own Svn code base. Ramkrishna Swamy sent the following on 1/28/2010 9:50 PM: > Hi Scott, > > What could be possible harm if i do so, i don't have much knowledge of OFBiz > and since it's my client's requirement so i have to follow. >
Re: splitup of ebay component.
when I added to Ebay, I used generic calls that other ofbiz application could hook into. then at a lower level added my functionality. By keeping the services at the ofbiz level the same don't have to keep changing other application, unless they want to use the new functionality. the also works for backward compatibility. So the xml or api is transparent to the rest of ofbiz Hans Bakker sent the following on 1/28/2010 8:32 PM: > Hi follow OFBiz users. > > as you have seen at the latest commits we have extended the ebay > component by using the Ebay API which allows an ofbiz user to (almost) > maintain all Ebay functions within OFBiz. > > Up to now there was no overlap between the existing XML functions and > the new API functions, however there now will be. > > Uploading products in the existing ebay function does not allow > maintaining inventory within in Ebay, but the new upload function does > or does not allow it set by a flag, so there is overlap. > > We plan further to duplicate all XML functions using the API interface. > > So hereby we propose to rename the existing Ebay component to "EbayXml" > and create a new Ebay component called "EbayAPI" both in the specialized > directory. > > comments or suggestions? >
Re: Any chance for an upgrade? - help please
Hi, Today is planned to switch from AJP to mod_jk...I will let you know the differences. How did I reached that point: a simple tool http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/programs/ab.html I tried to hit the Apache server only like /usr/local/apache2/bin/ab -c 100 -t 30 and I could reach almost 50.000 req/sec When I tried to hit Ofbiz through Apache I found a VERY big bottleneck.. never more than 5 req/sec... regards, Florin Florin, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "apache talke with ofbiz instances via AJP rather than mod_jk". I thought mod_jk used AJP. I would be interested if you find that AJP is a bottleneck. We use a configuration with Apache on the front end and ofbiz on behind it. We use mod_jk because it has a nice load balancer feature. We have also used mod_proxy which doesn't use AJP but we haven't done any performance testing to compare the differences between the two. Brett On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Florin Popa wrote: I'll take a look ar Grinder, seems promising, thanks again. Of course life is never easy :) now I have another problem... the network admin configured 2 ofbiz instances having an apache in front of them as balancer.. but apache "talks" with ofbiz instances via AJP rather than mod_jk ..which seems to be a bottleneck.. Have you experienced that kind of things? best regards, Florin Popa The Grinder is a nice tool for such things (and has a nice recording proxy). BTW, make sure to set your HTTP and thread pool sizes adequately for the load you are planning on. -David On Jan 28, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Florin Popa wrote: Thanks everyone for the help! Today we succeeded port to geronimo transaction 2.1 as well as the switch from minerva to DBCP connection pool. It seems much better but I am not fully content :) Maybe because the automated testing tool I am using can not really hit hard enough.. Any recommendation for such tools? Of course upgrade to latest version was scheduled too but this would take longer.. Best regards, Florin You're using a quite old version of OFBiz with the Minerva connection pool (I can tell from the stack trace you sent earlier). The Minerva connection pool has some issues with resetting connections when there are errors, especially if there is any code that doesn't manage errors well, but also if there are network layer issues or other sorts of things... it just doesn't recover at all. You could try making changes to use the Apache DBCP connection pool that we use now in OFBiz. To do so requires some low-level coding. You can look at the current code base for hints, but there is still some work. There are no known workarounds to this issue for really high volume sites, and for low-medium volume sites the workaround was to restart the app server(s) every day. -David On Jan 27, 2010, at 3:01 PM, Florin Popa wrote: I was just asking myself if someone encountered before such problems on older revisions.. Would be Geronimo ok to be used or shall I try something else? regards, Florin I'm sorry the potential for problems with this approach is just too large for me to be able to help you through it. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 27/01/2010, at 1:53 PM, Florin Popa wrote: The attempt to update Ofbiz to recent revision is for the moment (time limits) not possible.. there are so many differences... I am even not sure if bsh could work further instead of the newly groovy ?! also the entity layer handling.. etc So what I tried was to back port the transaction management - latest attempt is attached
Re: Any chance for an upgrade? - help please
Florin, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "apache talke with ofbiz instances via AJP rather than mod_jk". I thought mod_jk used AJP. I would be interested if you find that AJP is a bottleneck. We use a configuration with Apache on the front end and ofbiz on behind it. We use mod_jk because it has a nice load balancer feature. We have also used mod_proxy which doesn't use AJP but we haven't done any performance testing to compare the differences between the two. Brett On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Florin Popa wrote: > I'll take a look ar Grinder, seems promising, thanks again. > > Of course life is never easy :) now I have another problem... the network > admin configured 2 ofbiz instances having an apache in front of them as > balancer.. but apache "talks" with ofbiz instances via AJP rather than > mod_jk ..which seems to be a bottleneck.. > Have you experienced that kind of things? > > best regards, > Florin Popa > > > > The Grinder is a nice tool for such things (and has a nice recording >> proxy). >> >> BTW, make sure to set your HTTP and thread pool sizes adequately for the >> load you are planning on. >> >> -David >> >> >> On Jan 28, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Florin Popa wrote: >> >> >> >>> Thanks everyone for the help! >>> >>> Today we succeeded port to geronimo transaction 2.1 as well as the switch >>> from minerva to DBCP connection pool. It seems much better but I am not >>> fully content :) >>> Maybe because the automated testing tool I am using can not really hit >>> hard enough.. >>> >>> Any recommendation for such tools? >>> >>> >>> Of course upgrade to latest version was scheduled too but this would take >>> longer.. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Florin >>> >>> You're using a quite old version of OFBiz with the Minerva connection pool (I can tell from the stack trace you sent earlier). The Minerva connection pool has some issues with resetting connections when there are errors, especially if there is any code that doesn't manage errors well, but also if there are network layer issues or other sorts of things... it just doesn't recover at all. You could try making changes to use the Apache DBCP connection pool that we use now in OFBiz. To do so requires some low-level coding. You can look at the current code base for hints, but there is still some work. There are no known workarounds to this issue for really high volume sites, and for low-medium volume sites the workaround was to restart the app server(s) every day. -David On Jan 27, 2010, at 3:01 PM, Florin Popa wrote: > I was just asking myself if someone encountered before such problems on > older revisions.. > > Would be Geronimo ok to be used or shall I try something else? > > regards, > Florin > > >> I'm sorry the potential for problems with this approach is just too >> large for me to be able to help you through it. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> HotWax Media >> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >> >> On 27/01/2010, at 1:53 PM, Florin Popa wrote: >> >> >> >>> The attempt to update Ofbiz to recent revision is for the moment >>> (time limits) not possible.. there are so many differences... I am even >>> not >>> sure if bsh could work further instead of the newly groovy ?! also >>> the >>> entity layer handling.. etc >>> >>> So what I tried was to back port the transaction management - latest >>> attempt is attached >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > >
How to deploy Axis2 web service in ofbiz
Hi All, I am seeing all the threads for Axis2, but I couldn't find how to deploy AAR file in ofbiz. I will appreciate if anyone navigates me there. Thanks Bhupendra. http://www.mindtree.com/email/disclaimer.html
Re: OFBiz Blog, Integration 3rd party tools
yep, maybe someone have an idea or even implemented it. 2010/1/29 Info Olagos > Good question. > How to integrate Roller, interests me also. > > regards, > Heidi > > 2010/1/29 Sascha Rodekamp > > > Hi everybody, > > > > i thought of having a full featured blog in my ofbiz application. > > I like to have a blog that has functions like i.e. wordpress, roller. > > The ofbiz blog can't offer me these things :-) > > > > So someone have an idea how to integrate i.e Roller > > http://roller.apache.org/ (because it's java based) > > or some other great blog software in ofbiz? > > > > So long > > Sascha > > >
RE: Who is using OFBIZ in South Africa
Hi I have been working with Ofbiz since 2008. Gavin -Original Message- From: Brendan Vogt [mailto:brendan.v...@gmail.com] Sent: 29 January 2010 08:55 AM To: user@ofbiz.apache.org Subject: Re: Who is using OFBIZ in South Africa Hi, Let me know if you find any one. I tried it about 2 years, but there was a lack of documentation on how to do everything. So I am giving it another try now. I'm not working on a particular site, and you? Brendan On 28 January 2010 10:30, Louis Engelbrecht wrote: > Hi everyone. > > I am trying to get a list of OFBIZ users in South Africa. Is there anyone > on this list from South Africa > or know of other companies in South Africa using OFBIZ? > > Regards. > > > Louis Engelbrecht > > > -- > This message is subject to the CSIR's copyright terms and conditions, > e-mail legal notice, and implemented Open Document Format (ODF) standard. > The full disclaimer details can be found at > http://www.csir.co.za/disclaimer.html. > > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by > MailScanner, > and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks Transtec Computers for > their support. > >
Re: OFBiz Blog, Integration 3rd party tools
Good question. How to integrate Roller, interests me also. regards, Heidi 2010/1/29 Sascha Rodekamp > Hi everybody, > > i thought of having a full featured blog in my ofbiz application. > I like to have a blog that has functions like i.e. wordpress, roller. > The ofbiz blog can't offer me these things :-) > > So someone have an idea how to integrate i.e Roller > http://roller.apache.org/ (because it's java based) > or some other great blog software in ofbiz? > > So long > Sascha >
OFBiz Blog, Integration 3rd party tools
Hi everybody, i thought of having a full featured blog in my ofbiz application. I like to have a blog that has functions like i.e. wordpress, roller. The ofbiz blog can't offer me these things :-) So someone have an idea how to integrate i.e Roller http://roller.apache.org/ (because it's java based) or some other great blog software in ofbiz? So long Sascha
Re: Looking for Developers with Immediate Availability
Oops, sorry this was not intended to the user ML :/ Jacques From: "Jacques Le Roux" Hi David, Looks like business begins again :o). Did you get contacted by Paul Piper also? I will ask Geoff how many hours he expects from me in March, since Paul wants me to work with him. Cheers Jacques From: "David E Jones" Some people I know have an immediate need for 1-2 experienced developers to get a project based on OFBiz implemented quickly. It's a proof-of-concept application for a startup company. If you also happen to be an individual looking for full-time long-term employment then they are looking for that too, but their immediate need is for someone more experienced who can work full-time on a temporary basis (probably a couple of months), and start right away. If you are, or you know, an experienced developer with at least some knowledge of OFBiz who fits this description, please let me know and I'll pass the word along. People who work independently or who work for/through a company are both fine. Thanks, -David
Re: splitup of ebay component.
Excellent thanks we will have a look at it. On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 10:40 +0200, Florin Popa wrote: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3435 -- Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
Re: splitup of ebay component.
Did it as https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3435 Please contribute and attach it to an Jira issue! perhaps we can include it in the Ofbiz distribution? Did you have a lokk what is recently added? Regards, hans On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 09:45 +0200, Florin Popa wrote: Hi, For our project we developed already most of the Ebay related functionalities based on EbayAPI. Indeed there are few particular things like the way we keep track of the products sent to ebay as well as the set of attributes which could be published along with a product. If anyone interested I can offer that part of the source code. regards, Florin Hi Hans, Is there any reason that you know of for us to retain the XML interface at all? If the "API" is better then shouldn't we just use it alone? If we end up keeping both we might need better names, XML vs. API doesn't mean much (I mean the XML interface is also an API) or is this how eBay describes them? Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 28/01/2010, at 9:32 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: Hi follow OFBiz users. as you have seen at the latest commits we have extended the ebay component by using the Ebay API which allows an ofbiz user to (almost) maintain all Ebay functions within OFBiz. Up to now there was no overlap between the existing XML functions and the new API functions, however there now will be. Uploading products in the existing ebay function does not allow maintaining inventory within in Ebay, but the new upload function does or does not allow it set by a flag, so there is overlap. We plan further to duplicate all XML functions using the API interface. So hereby we propose to rename the existing Ebay component to "EbayXml" and create a new Ebay component called "EbayAPI" both in the specialized directory. comments or suggestions? -- Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
Re: Looking for Developers with Immediate Availability
Hi David, Looks like business begins again :o). Did you get contacted by Paul Piper also? I will ask Geoff how many hours he expects from me in March, since Paul wants me to work with him. Cheers Jacques From: "David E Jones" Some people I know have an immediate need for 1-2 experienced developers to get a project based on OFBiz implemented quickly. It's a proof-of-concept application for a startup company. If you also happen to be an individual looking for full-time long-term employment then they are looking for that too, but their immediate need is for someone more experienced who can work full-time on a temporary basis (probably a couple of months), and start right away. If you are, or you know, an experienced developer with at least some knowledge of OFBiz who fits this description, please let me know and I'll pass the word along. People who work independently or who work for/through a company are both fine. Thanks, -David
