Re: why we should have a 10.04 standalone framework release

[james_sg]

Hi David,

Thanks for the correction.

- james


David E Jones-4 wrote:
> 
> 
> James,
> 
> I think that was BJ's point: the OFBiz Entity Engine is NOT an ORM tool,
> ie there is no attempt to map between an object model and the relational
> model in the database. We simply use the relational model itself. This
> reduces redundancy (you don't have to create an object model), and it
> avoid the often big/annoying problem of "impedance mismatch" between the
> two very different ways of modeling and managing data.
> 
> I never did understand why the lords of Java always felt the need to map
> EVERYTHING to an object model instead of creating objects that make it
> easier to work with the natural model of each thing (ie relational
> databases, services, etc, etc). I guess once you get used to a certain way
> of doing things it's hard to imagine doing it in any way different.
> 
> -David
> 
> 
> On Sep 18, 2010, at 2:38 AM, james_sg wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi BJ,
>> 
>> I treat OFBiz entity engine as an ORM that uses Map for the Object part.
>> 
>> The gui modeler is a desktop application (not sure if it is swt based),
>> that
>> helps with the editing of the database definition files, and database
>> schema
>> migration. The gui modeler is not used in the web application, nor does
>> it
>> use JNLP.
>> 
>> Cayenne also doesn't generate the html forms from the database.
>> 
>> Anyway, I can't think of a strong business case for making entity engine
>> swappable.
>> I thought it is worth mentioning Cayenne since it is similar to OFBiz
>> entity
>> engine.
>> 
>> - james
>> 
>> 
>> BJ Freeman wrote:
>>> 
>>> One of the reason I came to ofbiz was to get away from the bloat of ORM.
>>> if I read the modeler right that is swt based Gui which introduces a 
>>> communication layer back to the server, unlike ofbiz being generated on 
>>> the fly into html, from the server.
>>> 
>>> BTw I have a Commercial Swt Gui Generator and use it for my legacy apps 
>>> I converted to ofbiz, as well as the communications layer using JNL.
>>> 
>>> =
>>> BJ Freeman
>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation 
>>> 
>>> Specialtymarket.com  
>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>> 
>>> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>> 
>>> james_sg sent the following on 9/18/2010 12:24 AM:
>>> 
>>> 
 
 Hi all,
 
 Apache Cayenne has the closest match to OFBiz Entity Engine.
 
 A few points about Cayenne:
 1. Cayenne has generic object while OFBiz has Generic Value.
 2. Cayene has DerivedDbEntity (depreciating) to OFBiz's View Entity.
 3. Cayenne has a gui modeler to map the database.
 4. Cayenne supports applications running in cluster.
 5. OFBiz requires the developer to explicitly save each generic value.
 In
 Cayenne, the developer to save the Generic Object and any associated
 Generic
 Objects are implicitly saved.
 6. Like OFBiz, the database definition files for Cayenne can be
 separated
 and grouped under domains and combined at runtime.
 7. Cayenne gui modeler has function to merge database changes, but
 OFBiz
 does that automatically.
 
 If there is a need or business case to support the swapping of the
 entity
 engine, it should support similar ORM and follows the api used in
 OFBiz.
 
 Also note there is a JPA standard for ORM that uses POJO.
 
 Regards,
 James
 
 
 Scott Gray-2 wrote:
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> Could you explain how you envisage swapping the entity engine with
> hibernate considering one uses Maps (GenericValue) and the other uses
> POJOs to represent data?
> 
> Thanks
> Scott
> 
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> 
> On 18/09/2010, at 1:32 AM, chris snow wrote:
> 
>> I  would see entity engine and service engine as separate modules.
>> 
>> Each module should have clearly defined api defining how they
>> interact
>> with the outside world.  A clearly defined api will facilitate
>> swapping parts.  For example, the entity engine could be replaced
>> with
>> a hibernate based engine as long as the api was implemented.
>> 
>> (also there would be a module for Birt)
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:06 PM, BJ Freeman 
>> wrote:
>>> to me framework is what has not ability to interact with the real
>>> world,
>>> like party, but just the tools.
>>> so base layer is Entity and service engine.
>>> Next layer is Webapp and Widgets.
>>> next layer is Webtools
>>> next layer is security and common
>>> 
>>> A person should be able to enable those things that they want for
>>> their
>>> application.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> chris snow sent the following on 9/17/2010 4:11 AM:
 
 If you follow my ins

Re: JavaDocs

[BJ Freeman]

LOL it was meant in Jest.
when have you ever seen me hurry.
ROFLMAO

Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 9/18/2010 3:30 PM:

No hurry, thanks BJ!

Jacques

From: "BJ Freeman" 

Ok you twisted my arm.
will make a jira as soon as I have the files to put in.



>>Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 9/18/2010 2:18 PM:

From: "David E Jones" 

BTW, about that email from me: I don't think that is the best solution
for the project in general. It is a good option for individual
developers and users, and maybe the best option unless the project
takes a different approach.


Yes, I agree it's 2 different things. I have asked recently to have
separated XSDs online. I did not thought about JavaDocs. The online Help
would be good also...


For example, it would be great to have separate URLs for different
versions. If we went through real design then develop phases then we
could even put the version numbers in filenames or something to make
it REALLY clear, but that isn't how OFBiz is (or has been) run. We
could certainly go back and grab the XSDs from release branches and do
something like what is proposed below on the ofbiz web site, and then
search/replace all of the XSD URLs in XML files to point to the proper
place for each branch. It would be a good improvement.


Yes, BJ's proposition sounds like the easier for now. The script handles
both dtd and javadoc. The problem, as ever, is... to do it ;o)

Jacques


-David


On Sep 18, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:


Here is a pragmatic answer from David
http://markmail.org/message/lbxf4jxallv7yngq
And here another interesting (older) one which will please Chris
http://markmail.org/message/dbit6lgsprx2eywu

Also for Eclipse
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/FAQ+-+Tips+-+Tricks+-+Cookbook+-+HowTo#FAQ-Tips-Tricks-Cookbook-HowTo-UsinglocaleXSDfilesinsteadofOFBizremote(at



Jacques

From: "BJ Freeman" 

The xsd are covered by using the internal ones. 9.04 started some
internal doc of the xsd. and it has progress in trunk but not
backwards.
but maybe a discussion about the Xsd being set for each version
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/4.0
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/9.04
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/10.04
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/trunk

the question comes who will maintain these.
right now there is a script that export the xsd's from the svn.
scripts would have to be exported for each branch as well.
but then you have to go through the code and replace all the
references to http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/ for the appropriate
release


chris snow sent the following on 9/18/2010 10:43 AM:

and xsd's? http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 6:39 PM, BJ Freeman
wrote:

should we have one for each release 4.0,9.04, 10.04 and trunk
http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/site/javadocs/

=
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation

Specialtymarket.com
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man

Re: why we should have a 10.04 standalone framework release

[BJ Freeman]

Might I suggest Setup method.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-635
have a group "System Setup"

Bruno Busco sent the following on 9/18/2010 1:11 PM:

That's my idea also.
Any office automation system needs everything is now in the framework folder
(entity engine, service engine, job scheduling, screen widgets, portals,
localization, themes, webslinger!, etc.) plus IMO a basic party management
system to allow users to login and interact with the system itself.

Users should be able to read some help or some sort of documentation in the
system they log in even before using any specific application and this is
why a basic content application should be also part of the "OFBiz core"
system.
Any user that logs in a system should be emailed back if they forgot the
password. Or they should be able to communicate with the system admin to ask
"hey! When my specific application will be available in the system?"

This is why a basic communication mechanism should be also part of the
"OFBiz core".

I use the "OFBiz core" term because I see that any time we speak about the
framework-only distribution we never agree. May be this vision could find
more people on the same page. (Or may be no one)

I have not worked with any other framework than OFBiz so may be someone
could say: "hey! But what you call "OFBiz core" is nothing more than what
you get using XXYYZZ".
If this is could you please give me any pointer?

Thank you,
Bruno


2010/9/18 David E Jones



When was the last time you worked on a project where you only needed a tool
for persistence and didn't need tools for anything else?

On the other hand, if you really LIKE to roll your own framework for each
project, and based on tools that aren't necessarily meant to work together,
then the approach you mentioned below is a great way to enjoy endless
evenings and weekends. On the other hand, if you want to focus on developing
things needed for applications instead of digging around in a framework for
weeks and deciding how to do every little thing, then it's nice to have a
complete framework to start with so you can efficiently work on the stuff
that is important to your client.

-David


On Sep 18, 2010, at 2:48 AM, chris snow wrote:


I'm sorry for pushing this off-track by mentioning hibernate. The

important

point is that the technologies aren't important.  There are many
technologies that could be used for the entity engine, and as BJ has

pointed

out, the ofbiz entity engine is very good. The problem for me is that the
entity engine is deeply interwined with the rest of ofbiz.  These
dependencies need to be managed.  Having a more modular ofbiz has

advantages

for ofbiz as a whole and for each module.

On 18 Sep 2010 09:03, "BJ Freeman"  wrote:

One of the reason I came to ofbiz was to get away from the bloat of ORM.
if I read the modeler right that is swt based Gui which introduces a
communication layer back to the server, unlike ofbiz being generated on

the

fly into html, from the server.

BTw I have a Commercial Swt Gui Generator and use it for my legacy apps I
converted to ofbiz, as well as the communications layer using JNL.

=
BJ Freeman


Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation<
http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewf...
james_sg sent the following on 9/18/2010 12:24 AM:






Hi all,

Apache Cayenne has the closest match to OFBiz Entity Engine.

A few points abo...

RE: Ofbiz WorkFlow Engine

[Shi Jinghai]

Bug, now fixed. Please update the source code and rebuild.

Good luck,

Shi Jinghai/Beijing Langhua Ltd.


在 2010-09-16四的 16:16 +0530，Deepa Priolkar写道：
> Hi Shi,
> 
>  
> 
> I have build the sample.process zip file. But it does not have the 
> productdefination.xml file. I am totally new to Maven script, I am using the 
> same script which you had provided not sure how to edit that file to add the 
> productdefination.xml
> 
>  
> 
> As of now it has only 
> 
> Pom.xml 
> 
> Pom.properties
> 
> MANIFEST.MF
> 
> OfBizJBPMSample.class
> 
>  
> 
> If I try to upload the same zip I am getting error, Please advice.
> 
> org.ofbiz.widget.screen.ScreenRenderException: Error rendering screen 
> [component://jbpm/widget/JbpmScreens.xml#uploadProcess]: 
> org.ofbiz.base.util.GeneralException: Error running BSH script at location 
> [component://jbpm/webapp/jbpm/WEB-INF/actions/jbpm/uploadProcess.bsh] (Error 
> running BSH script at 
> [component://jbpm/webapp/jbpm/WEB-INF/actions/jbpm/uploadProcess.bsh], line 
> [34]: Sourced file: 
> component://jbpm/webapp/jbpm/WEB-INF/actions/jbpm/uploadProcess.bsh : Method 
> Invocation upload.actionCommit : at Line: 34 : in file: 
> component://jbpm/webapp/jbpm/WEB-INF/actions/jbpm/uploadProcess.bsh : upload 
> .actionCommit ( request ) 
> 
>  
> 
> Target exception: org.jbpm.jpdl.JpdlException: [[ERROR] no 
> processdefinition.xml inside process archive]
> 
> (Sourced file: 
> component://jbpm/webapp/jbpm/WEB-INF/actions/jbpm/uploadProcess.bsh : Method 
> Invocation upload.actionCommit)) (Error running BSH script at location 
> [component://jbpm/webapp/jbpm/WEB-INF/actions/jbpm/uploadProcess.bsh] (Error 
> running BSH script at 
> [component://jbpm/webapp/jbpm/WEB-INF/actions/jbpm/uploadProcess.bsh], line 
> [34]: Sourced file: 
> component://jbpm/webapp/jbpm/WEB-INF/actions/jbpm/uploadProcess.bsh : Method 
> Invocation upload.actionCommit : at Line: 34 : in file: 
> component://jbpm/webapp/jbpm/WEB-INF/actions/jbpm/uploadProcess.bsh : upload 
> .actionCommit ( request ) 
> 
>  
> 
> Target exception: org.jbpm.jpdl.JpdlException: [[ERROR] no 
> processdefinition.xml inside process archive]
> 
> (Sourced file: 
> component://jbpm/webapp/jbpm/WEB-INF/actions/jbpm/uploadProcess.bsh : Method 
> Invocation upload.actionCommit)))
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks & Regards,
> 
> Deepa
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Shi Jinghai [mailto:sh...@langhua.cn] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2:43 AM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Ofbiz WorkFlow Engine
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Deepa,
> 
>  
> 
> Edit the project pom.xml, make processes module available, and run maven
> 
> package, the sample.process will be built under processes/target/
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> processes
> 
>   
> 
>  
> 
> Good luck,
> 
>  
> 
> Shi Jinghai/Beijing Langhua Ltd.
> 
>  
> 
> 在 2010-09-15三的 02:00 +0530，Deepa Priolkar写道：
> 
> > Thanks Shi.. I have done the integration, but one query regarding the 
> > process definition.
> 
> > In one of the step its mentioned to create the "sample.process" and upload 
> > it.. I did not catch up on how to create this file..tried all the scripts 
> > but no luck..please advice.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Regards,
> 
> > Deepa
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> 
> > From: Shi Jinghai [mailto:sh...@langhua.cn]
> 
> > Sent: Mon 9/13/2010 3:06 PM
> 
> > To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> 
> > Subject: RE: Ofbiz WorkFlow Engine
> 
> >  
> 
> > Hi Deepa,
> 
> > 
> 
> > The ofbiz-jbpm component is developed in maven style. We use eclipse +
> 
> > iam as our standard develop tool.
> 
> > 
> 
> > You can find the built components in our maven repository:
> 
> > http://maven2.langhua.org/public/ofbiz/ofbiz-htmlreport/09.04/
> 
> > 
> 
> > http://maven2.langhua.org/public/ofbiz/ofbiz-jbpm-core/09.04/
> 
> > 
> 
> > Download the zip files and unzip them to your ofbiz, rebuild (I changed
> 
> > the StringUtil.java to make it work for iframe in htmlreport), add the 2
> 
> > components to component-load.xml, config
> 
> > ${your_ofbiz_home}/runtime/catalina/conf/context.xml to fit your
> 
> > database and restart ofbiz, that's all. The jbpm tables will be created
> 
> > automatically during startup.
> 
> > 
> 
> > The htmlreport is a tool to show the procedures of importing jbpm
> 
> > process file and etc in web browser. There's demos in the component. You
> 
> > can remove it from your tool bar if it works.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Good luck,
> 
> > 
> 
> > Shi Jinghai/Beijing Langhua Ltd.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > ? 2010-09-12?? 22:29 +0530,Deepa Priolkar??:
> 
> > > can someone tell me how to create table in the derby database?
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > From: Deepa Priolkar [mailto:dee...@techmahindra.com]
> 
> > > Sent: Sun 9/12/2010 10:25 PM
> 
> > > To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> 
> > > Subject: RE: Ofbiz WorkFlow Engine
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > Hi,
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > I was able to solve the issue relate

Re: JavaDocs

[Jacques Le Roux]

No hurry, thanks BJ!

Jacques

From: "BJ Freeman" 

Ok you twisted my arm.
will make a jira as soon as I have the files to put in.



>>Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 9/18/2010 2:18 PM:

From: "David E Jones" 

BTW, about that email from me: I don't think that is the best solution
for the project in general. It is a good option for individual
developers and users, and maybe the best option unless the project
takes a different approach.


Yes, I agree it's 2 different things. I have asked recently to have
separated XSDs online. I did not thought about JavaDocs. The online Help
would be good also...


For example, it would be great to have separate URLs for different
versions. If we went through real design then develop phases then we
could even put the version numbers in filenames or something to make
it REALLY clear, but that isn't how OFBiz is (or has been) run. We
could certainly go back and grab the XSDs from release branches and do
something like what is proposed below on the ofbiz web site, and then
search/replace all of the XSD URLs in XML files to point to the proper
place for each branch. It would be a good improvement.


Yes, BJ's proposition sounds like the easier for now. The script handles
both dtd and javadoc. The problem, as ever, is... to do it ;o)

Jacques


-David


On Sep 18, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:


Here is a pragmatic answer from David
http://markmail.org/message/lbxf4jxallv7yngq
And here another interesting (older) one which will please Chris
http://markmail.org/message/dbit6lgsprx2eywu

Also for Eclipse
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/FAQ+-+Tips+-+Tricks+-+Cookbook+-+HowTo#FAQ-Tips-Tricks-Cookbook-HowTo-UsinglocaleXSDfilesinsteadofOFBizremote(at


Jacques

From: "BJ Freeman" 

The xsd are covered by using the internal ones. 9.04 started some
internal doc of the xsd. and it has progress in trunk but not
backwards.
but maybe a discussion about the Xsd being set for each version
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/4.0
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/9.04
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/10.04
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/trunk

the question comes who will maintain these.
right now there is a script that export the xsd's from the svn.
scripts would have to be exported for each branch as well.
but then you have to go through the code and replace all the
references to http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/ for the appropriate release


chris snow sent the following on 9/18/2010 10:43 AM:

and xsd's? http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 6:39 PM, BJ Freeman
wrote:

should we have one for each release 4.0,9.04, 10.04 and trunk
http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/site/javadocs/

=
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation

Specialtymarket.com
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man

Re: application/x-json issue in FF (3.6.8)

[Jacques Le Roux]

Not sure why and how (FF, plugins versions?) but this has been resolved since 
then without any actions from me. :D

Jacques

From: "Jacques Le Roux" 
Testing the work commited at revision: 989599, I crossed again an issue I have for a long time in FF with application/x-json, and 
I guess application/json as well (I'm on Windows but I don't think it's the reason). When I press the Add or Update button when 
editing a facility at https://localhost:8443/catalog/control/ProductStoreFacilities?productStoreId=9000, the FF download popup 
window surges and I'm trapped there. Even if the action is correctly executed underneath (I can see it if I refresh the page). I 
did not find any good solution either using https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/10869/ or 
http://www.spasche.net/openinbrowser/ because they only allow to see the file. I did not find yet a way to bypass the dowload 
popup window.


Note: to test the behaviour you need to update at least to r989599

Anyone an idea or a solution?

Thanks

Jacques

Re: JavaDocs

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Jacques Le Roux" 

From: "David E Jones" 

BTW, about that email from me: I don't think that is the best solution for the 
project in general. It is a good option for
individual developers and users, and maybe the best option unless the project 
takes a different approach.


Yes, I agree it's 2 different things. I have asked recently to have separated 
XSDs online. I did not thought about JavaDocs. The
online Help would be good also...


Found it, the last time was http://markmail.org/message/gi772634n2ewbujb :/ Good side, I cleaned 100 old messages, and BJ's ideas 
sounds good, patches anybody? :)



For example, it would be great to have separate URLs for different versions. If 
we went through real design then develop phases
then we could even put the version numbers in filenames or something to make it 
REALLY clear, but that isn't how OFBiz is (or has
been) run. We could certainly go back and grab the XSDs from release branches 
and do something like what is proposed below on the
ofbiz web site, and then search/replace all of the XSD URLs in XML files to 
point to the proper place for each branch. It would
be a good improvement.


Yes, BJ's proposition sounds like the easier for now. The script handles both 
dtd and javadoc. The problem, as ever, is... to do
it ;o)

Jacques


-David


On Sep 18, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:


Here is a pragmatic answer from David 
http://markmail.org/message/lbxf4jxallv7yngq
And here another interesting (older) one which will please Chris
http://markmail.org/message/dbit6lgsprx2eywu

Also for Eclipse
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/FAQ+-+Tips+-+Tricks+-+Cookbook+-+HowTo#FAQ-Tips-Tricks-Cookbook-HowTo-UsinglocaleXSDfilesinsteadofOFBizremote(at

Jacques

From: "BJ Freeman" 

The xsd are covered by using the internal ones. 9.04 started some internal doc 
of the xsd. and it has progress in trunk but not
backwards.
but maybe a discussion about the Xsd being set for each version
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/4.0
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/9.04
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/10.04
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/trunk

the question comes who will maintain these.
right now there is a script that export the xsd's from the svn.
scripts would have to be exported for each branch as well.
but then you have to go through the code and replace all the references to 
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/ for the appropriate
release


chris snow sent the following on 9/18/2010 10:43 AM:

and xsd's? http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 6:39 PM, BJ Freeman  wrote:

should we have one for each release 4.0,9.04, 10.04 and trunk
http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/site/javadocs/

=
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
 
Specialtymarket.com
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man

Re: JavaDocs

[BJ Freeman]

Ok you twisted my arm.
will make a jira as soon as I have the files to put in.



>>Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 9/18/2010 2:18 PM:

From: "David E Jones" 

BTW, about that email from me: I don't think that is the best solution
for the project in general. It is a good option for individual
developers and users, and maybe the best option unless the project
takes a different approach.


Yes, I agree it's 2 different things. I have asked recently to have
separated XSDs online. I did not thought about JavaDocs. The online Help
would be good also...


For example, it would be great to have separate URLs for different
versions. If we went through real design then develop phases then we
could even put the version numbers in filenames or something to make
it REALLY clear, but that isn't how OFBiz is (or has been) run. We
could certainly go back and grab the XSDs from release branches and do
something like what is proposed below on the ofbiz web site, and then
search/replace all of the XSD URLs in XML files to point to the proper
place for each branch. It would be a good improvement.


Yes, BJ's proposition sounds like the easier for now. The script handles
both dtd and javadoc. The problem, as ever, is... to do it ;o)

Jacques


-David


On Sep 18, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:


Here is a pragmatic answer from David
http://markmail.org/message/lbxf4jxallv7yngq
And here another interesting (older) one which will please Chris
http://markmail.org/message/dbit6lgsprx2eywu

Also for Eclipse
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/FAQ+-+Tips+-+Tricks+-+Cookbook+-+HowTo#FAQ-Tips-Tricks-Cookbook-HowTo-UsinglocaleXSDfilesinsteadofOFBizremote(at


Jacques

From: "BJ Freeman" 

The xsd are covered by using the internal ones. 9.04 started some
internal doc of the xsd. and it has progress in trunk but not
backwards.
but maybe a discussion about the Xsd being set for each version
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/4.0
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/9.04
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/10.04
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/trunk

the question comes who will maintain these.
right now there is a script that export the xsd's from the svn.
scripts would have to be exported for each branch as well.
but then you have to go through the code and replace all the
references to http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/ for the appropriate release


chris snow sent the following on 9/18/2010 10:43 AM:

and xsd's? http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 6:39 PM, BJ Freeman
wrote:

should we have one for each release 4.0,9.04, 10.04 and trunk
http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/site/javadocs/

=
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation

Specialtymarket.com
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man

Re: Error of java type in createProduct simple method

[Jacques Le Roux]

Fixed at r998557 in trunk

Jacques

From: "Cimballi" 

Idem for
WorkEffort.quantityToProduce
TechDataCalendarExcDay.usedCapacity
TechDataCalendarExcDay.exceptionCapacity


On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Cimballi  wrote:

Adrian and Jacques,

There is the same problem for the following fields :
WorkEffort reservPersons, reserv2ndPPPerc, reservNthPPPerc

They are defined as "floating-point" = Double, but in the
ShoppingCartItem class BigDecimal is used.

Cimballi


On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 1:35 AM, Jacques Le Roux
 wrote:

Thanks Adrian,

Fixed at r892439

Jacques

From: "Adrian Cumiskey" 


Hi Cimballi,

Yes this is a bug in the OFBiz 09.04 release. It has since been fixed in
trunk in revision r771477. Its probably easiest to change the type
"Integer" to "Long" in ProductServices.xml until the next release.

Adrian Cumiskey.

2009/12/19 Cimballi 


Hi,

I think the is an error of java type in the simple method
"createProduct" in the file


"applications/product/script/org/ofbiz/product/product/ProductServices.xml".
The line is : 
But the field "billOfMaterialLevel" is specified as numeric = Long in
the "entitymodel.xml" file.

Cimballi

Re: why we should have a 10.04 standalone framework release

[Ken Gunderson]

On Sat, 2010-09-18 at 10:42 +0100, chris snow wrote:
> Hi BJ, there are parts of ofbiz that could be 'easily' used outside of
> ofbiz if they weren't all part of the same code base.  The Entity
> Engine example is one part that could become a library.  Other parts
> include the datatype coverters and temporal expressions.  At the
> moment if I want to use these parts of ofbiz in external applications,
> I have to manually extract them from the ofbiz code base.
> 
> The framework would then be an assembly of libraries. By splitting
> ofbiz up, each library (entity engine, converters, temporal
> expressions, etc) could be developed independently of the rest of the
> ofbiz code.  Do you want me do list the advantages of this approach?

Nope.  But it might be nice if:

1) Everyone stopped top posting so that ofbiz newbies could more easily
follow the chronology of discussion threads.

2) You listed the disadvantages of your approach.

Thank you and have a nice day;)

-- 
Ken Gunderson 

Re: Nesting required-permissions in service definition

[Jacques Le Roux]

Yes, a patch could be contributed. Just verify before that you are using the right xsd version and that it's has not been already 
fixed.


Jacques

From: "Rene Scheibe" 

We are using nested 'required-permissions' elements in our service
definitions to implement AND & OR joining. See below:


   
   
   
   
   


This works create but the services.xsd does not specify such nesting.
Therefore warnings show up when starting OFBiz.

The question now is, if the services.xsd should be updated?

Regards,
René
--
René Scheibe * rene.sche...@tngtech.com
TNG Technology Consulting GmbH, Betastr. 13a, 85774 Unterföhring
Geschäftsführer: Henrik Klagges, Gerhard Müller, Christoph Stock
Sitz: Unterföhring * Amtsgericht München * HRB 135082

Re: JavaDocs

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "David E Jones" 
BTW, about that email from me: I don't think that is the best solution for the project in general. It is a good option for 
individual developers and users, and maybe the best option unless the project takes a different approach.


Yes, I agree it's 2 different things. I have asked recently to have separated XSDs online. I did not thought about JavaDocs. The 
online Help would be good also...


For example, it would be great to have separate URLs for different versions. If we went through real design then develop phases 
then we could even put the version numbers in filenames or something to make it REALLY clear, but that isn't how OFBiz is (or has 
been) run. We could certainly go back and grab the XSDs from release branches and do something like what is proposed below on the 
ofbiz web site, and then search/replace all of the XSD URLs in XML files to point to the proper place for each branch. It would be 
a good improvement.


Yes, BJ's proposition sounds like the easier for now. The script handles both dtd and javadoc. The problem, as ever, is... to do it 
;o)


Jacques


-David


On Sep 18, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:


Here is a pragmatic answer from David 
http://markmail.org/message/lbxf4jxallv7yngq
And here another interesting (older) one which will please Chris
http://markmail.org/message/dbit6lgsprx2eywu

Also for Eclipse
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/FAQ+-+Tips+-+Tricks+-+Cookbook+-+HowTo#FAQ-Tips-Tricks-Cookbook-HowTo-UsinglocaleXSDfilesinsteadofOFBizremote(at

Jacques

From: "BJ Freeman" 
The xsd are covered by using the internal ones. 9.04 started some internal doc of the xsd. and it has progress in trunk but not 
backwards.

but maybe a discussion about the Xsd being set for each version
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/4.0
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/9.04
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/10.04
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/trunk

the question comes who will maintain these.
right now there is a script that export the xsd's from the svn.
scripts would have to be exported for each branch as well.
but then you have to go through the code and replace all the references to http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/ for the appropriate 
release



chris snow sent the following on 9/18/2010 10:43 AM:

and xsd's? http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 6:39 PM, BJ Freeman  wrote:

should we have one for each release 4.0,9.04, 10.04 and trunk
http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/site/javadocs/

=
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
 
Specialtymarket.com
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man

Re: why we should have a 10.04 standalone framework release

[chris snow]

Making the entity engine available as a standalone module definitely has
appeal.  For example, the entity engine would sit nicely alongside an ESB
such as mule for providing a very flexible and quick to develop persistence
adapter.

When I talk about the framework being more modular, I am looking far into
the future (i.e. I'm dreaming).  The first step is to aim for
framework/application independence.

Someone is going to have to dig around in the framework from time to time. 
If parts of the framework could be worked on independently of the rest of
the framework, it would make those parts much easier to maintain.


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/why-we-should-have-a-10-04-standalone-framework-release-tp1568563p2545511.html
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: why we should have a 10.04 standalone framework release

[Bruno Busco]

That's my idea also.
Any office automation system needs everything is now in the framework folder
(entity engine, service engine, job scheduling, screen widgets, portals,
localization, themes, webslinger!, etc.) plus IMO a basic party management
system to allow users to login and interact with the system itself.

Users should be able to read some help or some sort of documentation in the
system they log in even before using any specific application and this is
why a basic content application should be also part of the "OFBiz core"
system.
Any user that logs in a system should be emailed back if they forgot the
password. Or they should be able to communicate with the system admin to ask
"hey! When my specific application will be available in the system?"

This is why a basic communication mechanism should be also part of the
"OFBiz core".

I use the "OFBiz core" term because I see that any time we speak about the
framework-only distribution we never agree. May be this vision could find
more people on the same page. (Or may be no one)

I have not worked with any other framework than OFBiz so may be someone
could say: "hey! But what you call "OFBiz core" is nothing more than what
you get using XXYYZZ".
If this is could you please give me any pointer?

Thank you,
Bruno


2010/9/18 David E Jones 

>
> When was the last time you worked on a project where you only needed a tool
> for persistence and didn't need tools for anything else?
>
> On the other hand, if you really LIKE to roll your own framework for each
> project, and based on tools that aren't necessarily meant to work together,
> then the approach you mentioned below is a great way to enjoy endless
> evenings and weekends. On the other hand, if you want to focus on developing
> things needed for applications instead of digging around in a framework for
> weeks and deciding how to do every little thing, then it's nice to have a
> complete framework to start with so you can efficiently work on the stuff
> that is important to your client.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Sep 18, 2010, at 2:48 AM, chris snow wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry for pushing this off-track by mentioning hibernate. The
> important
> > point is that the technologies aren't important.  There are many
> > technologies that could be used for the entity engine, and as BJ has
> pointed
> > out, the ofbiz entity engine is very good. The problem for me is that the
> > entity engine is deeply interwined with the rest of ofbiz.  These
> > dependencies need to be managed.  Having a more modular ofbiz has
> advantages
> > for ofbiz as a whole and for each module.
> >
> > On 18 Sep 2010 09:03, "BJ Freeman"  wrote:
> >
> > One of the reason I came to ofbiz was to get away from the bloat of ORM.
> > if I read the modeler right that is swt based Gui which introduces a
> > communication layer back to the server, unlike ofbiz being generated on
> the
> > fly into html, from the server.
> >
> > BTw I have a Commercial Swt Gui Generator and use it for my legacy apps I
> > converted to ofbiz, as well as the communications layer using JNL.
> >
> > =
> > BJ Freeman
> >
> >
> > Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation  <
> > http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewf...
> > james_sg sent the following on 9/18/2010 12:24 AM:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Apache Cayenne has the closest match to OFBiz Entity Engine.
> >>
> >> A few points abo...
>
>

Re: JavaDocs

[David E Jones]

BTW, about that email from me: I don't think that is the best solution for the 
project in general. It is a good option for individual developers and users, 
and maybe the best option unless the project takes a different approach.

For example, it would be great to have separate URLs for different versions. If 
we went through real design then develop phases then we could even put the 
version numbers in filenames or something to make it REALLY clear, but that 
isn't how OFBiz is (or has been) run. We could certainly go back and grab the 
XSDs from release branches and do something like what is proposed below on the 
ofbiz web site, and then search/replace all of the XSD URLs in XML files to 
point to the proper place for each branch. It would be a good improvement.

-David


On Sep 18, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Here is a pragmatic answer from David 
> http://markmail.org/message/lbxf4jxallv7yngq
> And here another interesting (older) one which will please Chris
> http://markmail.org/message/dbit6lgsprx2eywu
> 
> Also for Eclipse
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/FAQ+-+Tips+-+Tricks+-+Cookbook+-+HowTo#FAQ-Tips-Tricks-Cookbook-HowTo-UsinglocaleXSDfilesinsteadofOFBizremote(at
> 
> Jacques
> 
> From: "BJ Freeman" 
>> The xsd are covered by using the internal ones. 9.04 started some internal 
>> doc of the xsd. and it has progress in trunk but not backwards.
>> but maybe a discussion about the Xsd being set for each version
>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/4.0
>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/9.04
>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/10.04
>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/trunk
>> 
>> the question comes who will maintain these.
>> right now there is a script that export the xsd's from the svn.
>> scripts would have to be exported for each branch as well.
>> but then you have to go through the code and replace all the references to 
>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/ for the appropriate release
>> 
>> 
>> chris snow sent the following on 9/18/2010 10:43 AM:
>>> and xsd's? http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 6:39 PM, BJ Freeman  wrote:
 should we have one for each release 4.0,9.04, 10.04 and trunk
 http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/site/javadocs/
 
 =
 BJ Freeman
 Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
  
 Specialtymarket.com
 Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
 
 Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
 
 
>>> 
> 
> 

Re: JavaDocs

[Jacques Le Roux]

Here is a pragmatic answer from David 
http://markmail.org/message/lbxf4jxallv7yngq
And here another interesting (older) one which will please Chris
http://markmail.org/message/dbit6lgsprx2eywu

Also for Eclipse
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/FAQ+-+Tips+-+Tricks+-+Cookbook+-+HowTo#FAQ-Tips-Tricks-Cookbook-HowTo-UsinglocaleXSDfilesinsteadofOFBizremote(at

Jacques

From: "BJ Freeman" 
The xsd are covered by using the internal ones. 9.04 started some internal doc of the xsd. and it has progress in trunk but not 
backwards.

but maybe a discussion about the Xsd being set for each version
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/4.0
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/9.04
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/10.04
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/trunk

the question comes who will maintain these.
right now there is a script that export the xsd's from the svn.
scripts would have to be exported for each branch as well.
but then you have to go through the code and replace all the references to http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/ for the appropriate 
release



chris snow sent the following on 9/18/2010 10:43 AM:

and xsd's? http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 6:39 PM, BJ Freeman  wrote:

should we have one for each release 4.0,9.04, 10.04 and trunk
http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/site/javadocs/

=
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
  
Specialtymarket.com
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man

Re: JavaDocs

[BJ Freeman]

The xsd are covered by using the internal ones. 9.04 started some 
internal doc of the xsd. and it has progress in trunk but not backwards.

but maybe a discussion about the Xsd being set for each version
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/4.0
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/9.04
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/10.04
http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/trunk

the question comes who will maintain these.
right now there is a script that export the xsd's from the svn.
scripts would have to be exported for each branch as well.
but then you have to go through the code and replace all the references 
to http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/ for the appropriate release



chris snow sent the following on 9/18/2010 10:43 AM:

and xsd's? http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 6:39 PM, BJ Freeman  wrote:

should we have one for each release 4.0,9.04, 10.04 and trunk
http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/site/javadocs/

=
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
  
Specialtymarket.com
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man

Re: does VAT work on 9.04

[Info Olagos]

oei difficult !

ok

Heidi

2010/9/18 chris snow 

> I found the problem - I was testing the shopping cart using the
> "admin" userid.  The admin user didn't have a shipping address so
> calcAndAddTax was just silently returning:
>
>public void calcAndAddTax(GenericValue shipAddress) throws
> GeneralException {
>if (UtilValidate.isEmpty(cart.getShippingContactMechId()) &&
> cart.getBillingAddress() == null && shipAddress == null) {
>return;
> }
>
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:16 PM, chris snow  wrote:
> > Yes, under the miscellaneous sub-section.
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Info Olagos 
> wrote:
> >> yes, they have a shipping cost.
> >> I use release09.04.
> >>
> >> Did you say in the products configuration to add tax?
> >>
> >> Heidi
> >>
> >> 2010/9/17 chris snow 
> >>
> >>> I have setup the accounting taxes part.
> >>>
> >>> Do your products have a shipping cost?
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Info Olagos 
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > no in my shop it is working very good.
> >>> >
> >>> > Did you configure it in the "accounting" "taxes" part ?
> >>> >
> >>> > regards,Heidi
> >>> >
> >>> > 2010/9/17 chris snow 
> >>> >
> >>> >> I've probably mis-configured my setup, but thought I would also
> double
> >>> >> check if VAT is working on 9.04?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> My checkout VAT is always showing 0.00
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Many thanks,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Chris
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >
>

Re: JavaDocs

[chris snow]

and xsd's? http://ofbiz.apache.org/dtds/

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 6:39 PM, BJ Freeman  wrote:
> should we have one for each release 4.0,9.04, 10.04 and trunk
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/site/javadocs/
>
> =
> BJ Freeman
> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
>  
> Specialtymarket.com  
> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>
> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>
>

JavaDocs

[BJ Freeman]

should we have one for each release 4.0,9.04, 10.04 and trunk
http://ci.apache.org/projects/ofbiz/site/javadocs/

=
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation  

Specialtymarket.com  
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man

Re: using json

[chris snow]

Hi BJ, thanks for the response.  Unfortunately, an iframe won't do - I
need to have a json client running on a remote server.

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 6:16 PM, BJ Freeman  wrote:
> how about an Iframe from the website to the login you want to use.
> I use this a lot for backend Customer login for my portal, on clients
> websites that ofbiz is the back end but not the ecommerce provider.
>
> chris snow sent the following on 9/18/2010 9:32 AM:
>>
>> Are there any instructions for connecting to ofbiz using
>> javascript+json from an external web application.  I would like to
>> make a call to a service/controller that requires authentication.
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
>

Re: using json

[BJ Freeman]

how about an Iframe from the website to the login you want to use.
I use this a lot for backend Customer login for my portal, on clients 
websites that ofbiz is the back end but not the ecommerce provider.


chris snow sent the following on 9/18/2010 9:32 AM:

Are there any instructions for connecting to ofbiz using
javascript+json from an external web application.  I would like to
make a call to a service/controller that requires authentication.

Many thanks,

Chris

Re: Recording Commissions from Partner website

[BJ Freeman]

Not that I know of


OfBizSuds sent the following on 9/16/2010 11:21 PM:



Suppose we have a link to a partner website from our site&  whenever a user
from our website goes to their website and makes a purchase we get a
commission. We have no control over the partner website&  at the end of
every month they give us a list of purchases made thru this link&  what the
commissions are etc.

So, my question is, is there a way we can use the existing DB tables to
record these sort of transactions? So the product is not ours, just the
sales commission is.

Would also like to thank all the responses to my previous queries...you guys
have been really helpful! :)

Thanks,

Sudha

Re: why we should have a 10.04 standalone framework release

[David E Jones]

When was the last time you worked on a project where you only needed a tool for 
persistence and didn't need tools for anything else?

On the other hand, if you really LIKE to roll your own framework for each 
project, and based on tools that aren't necessarily meant to work together, 
then the approach you mentioned below is a great way to enjoy endless evenings 
and weekends. On the other hand, if you want to focus on developing things 
needed for applications instead of digging around in a framework for weeks and 
deciding how to do every little thing, then it's nice to have a complete 
framework to start with so you can efficiently work on the stuff that is 
important to your client.

-David


On Sep 18, 2010, at 2:48 AM, chris snow wrote:

> I'm sorry for pushing this off-track by mentioning hibernate. The important
> point is that the technologies aren't important.  There are many
> technologies that could be used for the entity engine, and as BJ has pointed
> out, the ofbiz entity engine is very good. The problem for me is that the
> entity engine is deeply interwined with the rest of ofbiz.  These
> dependencies need to be managed.  Having a more modular ofbiz has advantages
> for ofbiz as a whole and for each module.
> 
> On 18 Sep 2010 09:03, "BJ Freeman"  wrote:
> 
> One of the reason I came to ofbiz was to get away from the bloat of ORM.
> if I read the modeler right that is swt based Gui which introduces a
> communication layer back to the server, unlike ofbiz being generated on the
> fly into html, from the server.
> 
> BTw I have a Commercial Swt Gui Generator and use it for my legacy apps I
> converted to ofbiz, as well as the communications layer using JNL.
> 
> =
> BJ Freeman
> 
> 
> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation  <
> http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewf...
> james_sg sent the following on 9/18/2010 12:24 AM:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Apache Cayenne has the closest match to OFBiz Entity Engine.
>> 
>> A few points abo...

Re: why we should have a 10.04 standalone framework release

[David E Jones]

James,

I think that was BJ's point: the OFBiz Entity Engine is NOT an ORM tool, ie 
there is no attempt to map between an object model and the relational model in 
the database. We simply use the relational model itself. This reduces 
redundancy (you don't have to create an object model), and it avoid the often 
big/annoying problem of "impedance mismatch" between the two very different 
ways of modeling and managing data.

I never did understand why the lords of Java always felt the need to map 
EVERYTHING to an object model instead of creating objects that make it easier 
to work with the natural model of each thing (ie relational databases, 
services, etc, etc). I guess once you get used to a certain way of doing things 
it's hard to imagine doing it in any way different.

-David


On Sep 18, 2010, at 2:38 AM, james_sg wrote:

> 
> Hi BJ,
> 
> I treat OFBiz entity engine as an ORM that uses Map for the Object part.
> 
> The gui modeler is a desktop application (not sure if it is swt based), that
> helps with the editing of the database definition files, and database schema
> migration. The gui modeler is not used in the web application, nor does it
> use JNLP.
> 
> Cayenne also doesn't generate the html forms from the database.
> 
> Anyway, I can't think of a strong business case for making entity engine
> swappable.
> I thought it is worth mentioning Cayenne since it is similar to OFBiz entity
> engine.
> 
> - james
> 
> 
> BJ Freeman wrote:
>> 
>> One of the reason I came to ofbiz was to get away from the bloat of ORM.
>> if I read the modeler right that is swt based Gui which introduces a 
>> communication layer back to the server, unlike ofbiz being generated on 
>> the fly into html, from the server.
>> 
>> BTw I have a Commercial Swt Gui Generator and use it for my legacy apps 
>> I converted to ofbiz, as well as the communications layer using JNL.
>> 
>> =
>> BJ Freeman
>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation 
>> 
>> Specialtymarket.com  
>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>> 
>> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>> 
>> james_sg sent the following on 9/18/2010 12:24 AM:
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> Apache Cayenne has the closest match to OFBiz Entity Engine.
>>> 
>>> A few points about Cayenne:
>>> 1. Cayenne has generic object while OFBiz has Generic Value.
>>> 2. Cayene has DerivedDbEntity (depreciating) to OFBiz's View Entity.
>>> 3. Cayenne has a gui modeler to map the database.
>>> 4. Cayenne supports applications running in cluster.
>>> 5. OFBiz requires the developer to explicitly save each generic value. In
>>> Cayenne, the developer to save the Generic Object and any associated
>>> Generic
>>> Objects are implicitly saved.
>>> 6. Like OFBiz, the database definition files for Cayenne can be separated
>>> and grouped under domains and combined at runtime.
>>> 7. Cayenne gui modeler has function to merge database changes, but OFBiz
>>> does that automatically.
>>> 
>>> If there is a need or business case to support the swapping of the entity
>>> engine, it should support similar ORM and follows the api used in OFBiz.
>>> 
>>> Also note there is a JPA standard for ORM that uses POJO.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> James
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Scott Gray-2 wrote:
 
 Hi Chris,
 
 Could you explain how you envisage swapping the entity engine with
 hibernate considering one uses Maps (GenericValue) and the other uses
 POJOs to represent data?
 
 Thanks
 Scott
 
 HotWax Media
 http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
 
 On 18/09/2010, at 1:32 AM, chris snow wrote:
 
> I  would see entity engine and service engine as separate modules.
> 
> Each module should have clearly defined api defining how they interact
> with the outside world.  A clearly defined api will facilitate
> swapping parts.  For example, the entity engine could be replaced with
> a hibernate based engine as long as the api was implemented.
> 
> (also there would be a module for Birt)
> 
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:06 PM, BJ Freeman 
> wrote:
>> to me framework is what has not ability to interact with the real
>> world,
>> like party, but just the tools.
>> so base layer is Entity and service engine.
>> Next layer is Webapp and Widgets.
>> next layer is Webtools
>> next layer is security and common
>> 
>> A person should be able to enable those things that they want for
>> their
>> application.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> chris snow sent the following on 9/17/2010 4:11 AM:
>>> 
>>> If you follow my instructions for 9.04 that will to a large extent
>>> give you framework independence.
>>> 
>>> I think 9.04 makes a good basis for looking at modularising parts of
>>> ofbiz.  For example, I would like to see the entity engine live in
>>> its
>>> own p

using json

[chris snow]

Are there any instructions for connecting to ofbiz using
javascript+json from an external web application.  I would like to
make a call to a service/controller that requires authentication.

Many thanks,

Chris

problem in new component

[hdv]

hi

I am developing an e-commerce site.I have created one site by doing changes
in ecommerce component and it is working fine but now i want same site but
using our new component.I have created new component and also done lots of
changes but not able to get products from db but when I change the
mycomponent to ecommerce in the url,products are showing.So changes should I
do to bring those products on mycomponent url
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/problem-in-new-component-tp2544773p2544773.html
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: why we should have a 10.04 standalone framework release

[Adrian Crum]

--- On Sat, 9/18/10, chris snow  wrote:
> Hi BJ, there are parts of ofbiz that
> could be 'easily' used outside of
> ofbiz if they weren't all part of the same code base. 
> The Entity
> Engine example is one part that could become a
> library.  Other parts
> include the datatype coverters and temporal
> expressions.  At the
> moment if I want to use these parts of ofbiz in external
> applications,
> I have to manually extract them from the ofbiz code base.

Actually, the conversion framework is a separate library:

http://commons.apache.org/sandbox/convert/

> The framework would then be an assembly of libraries. By
> splitting
> ofbiz up, each library (entity engine, converters,
> temporal
> expressions, etc) could be developed independently of the
> rest of the
> ofbiz code.

Someone had suggested some time ago in a similar discussion that the OFBiz 
framework itself could be condensed down to a single jar file.

-Adrian

Re: why we should have a 10.04 standalone framework release

[BJ Freeman]

Thanks for the taking the time to explain.

So you planning a seperate project?
I don't see the  business need for distribution in this environment of 
just the Jars, for the framework.


I could see them in another environment that is not directly related to 
this project(svn).



chris snow sent the following on 9/18/2010 2:42 AM:


Hi BJ, there are parts of ofbiz that could be 'easily' used outside of
ofbiz if they weren't all part of the same code base.  The Entity
Engine example is one part that could become a library.  Other parts
include the datatype coverters and temporal expressions.  At the
moment if I want to use these parts of ofbiz in external applications,
I have to manually extract them from the ofbiz code base.

The framework would then be an assembly of libraries. By splitting
ofbiz up, each library (entity engine, converters, temporal
expressions, etc) could be developed independently of the rest of the
ofbiz code.  Do you want me do list the advantages of this approach?


On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 10:02 AM, BJ Freeman  wrote:

Chris I may be dense, but what dependencies do you see from the entity
engine to the rest of ofbiz?
I agree that from the rest of ofbiz the entity engine is core, and is to me
the very reason that ofbiz is great.
But from a framework point of view you can strip away the application and
specialpurpose and build anything you want on top of the framework.
which is why it is called a framework.

outside of the base and supporting files in framework, you could probably
reemove 50% of the framework and still have the entiy engine work.

So is it just a technical thing or is there really a gain in what you are
saying?

Just trying to get a Grasp on what you goal and scope is.

chris snow sent the following on 9/18/2010 1:48 AM:


I'm sorry for pushing this off-track by mentioning hibernate. The
important
point is that the technologies aren't important.  There are many


  technologies that could be used for the entity engine, and as BJ has
pointed


out, the ofbiz entity engine is very good. The problem for me is that the
entity engine is deeply interwined with the rest of ofbiz.  These
dependencies need to be managed.  Having a more modular ofbiz has
advantages
for ofbiz as a whole and for each module.

On 18 Sep 2010 09:03, "BJ Freeman"wrote:

One of the reason I came to ofbiz was to get away from the bloat of ORM.
if I read the modeler right that is swt based Gui which introduces a
communication layer back to the server, unlike ofbiz being generated on
the
fly into html, from the server.

BTw I have a Commercial Swt Gui Generator and use it for my legacy apps I
converted to ofbiz, as well as the communications layer using JNL.

=
BJ Freeman


Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation<
http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewf...
james_sg sent the following on 9/18/2010 12:24 AM:






Hi all,

Apache Cayenne has the closest match to OFBiz Entity Engine.

A few points abo...

Re: how to automatically invoke the java file whenever ofbiz starts?...

[saravanan6]

Hi Scott,


i followed ur step with my sample pgm like below


public class startupTest implements org.ofbiz.base.container
{

   startupTest()
   {
 System.out.println("");
 System.out.println("");
 System.out.println("");
 System.out.println("***Ofbiz Application Started");
 System.out.println("");
 System.out.println("");
 System.out.println("");
   }
}



but it raised exception like 

   package org.ofbiz.base does
not exist.

acutally the interface container located in
C:\ofbiz-trunk\framework\base\src\org\ofbiz\base\container


plz give me the solution to avoid this exception...



Dont mistake me for asking question like this.coz, i am new to ofbiz

Saravanan

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/how-to-automatically-invoke-the-java-file-whenever-ofbiz-starts-tp2543570p2544893.html
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: why we should have a 10.04 standalone framework release

[chris snow]

Hi BJ, there are parts of ofbiz that could be 'easily' used outside of
ofbiz if they weren't all part of the same code base.  The Entity
Engine example is one part that could become a library.  Other parts
include the datatype coverters and temporal expressions.  At the
moment if I want to use these parts of ofbiz in external applications,
I have to manually extract them from the ofbiz code base.

The framework would then be an assembly of libraries. By splitting
ofbiz up, each library (entity engine, converters, temporal
expressions, etc) could be developed independently of the rest of the
ofbiz code.  Do you want me do list the advantages of this approach?


On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 10:02 AM, BJ Freeman  wrote:
> Chris I may be dense, but what dependencies do you see from the entity
> engine to the rest of ofbiz?
> I agree that from the rest of ofbiz the entity engine is core, and is to me
> the very reason that ofbiz is great.
> But from a framework point of view you can strip away the application and
> specialpurpose and build anything you want on top of the framework.
> which is why it is called a framework.
>
> outside of the base and supporting files in framework, you could probably
> reemove 50% of the framework and still have the entiy engine work.
>
> So is it just a technical thing or is there really a gain in what you are
> saying?
>
> Just trying to get a Grasp on what you goal and scope is.
>
> chris snow sent the following on 9/18/2010 1:48 AM:
>>
>> I'm sorry for pushing this off-track by mentioning hibernate. The
>> important
>> point is that the technologies aren't important.  There are many
>
>  technologies that could be used for the entity engine, and as BJ has
> pointed
>>
>> out, the ofbiz entity engine is very good. The problem for me is that the
>> entity engine is deeply interwined with the rest of ofbiz.  These
>> dependencies need to be managed.  Having a more modular ofbiz has
>> advantages
>> for ofbiz as a whole and for each module.
>>
>> On 18 Sep 2010 09:03, "BJ Freeman"  wrote:
>>
>> One of the reason I came to ofbiz was to get away from the bloat of ORM.
>> if I read the modeler right that is swt based Gui which introduces a
>> communication layer back to the server, unlike ofbiz being generated on
>> the
>> fly into html, from the server.
>>
>> BTw I have a Commercial Swt Gui Generator and use it for my legacy apps I
>> converted to ofbiz, as well as the communications layer using JNL.
>>
>> =
>> BJ Freeman
>>
>>
>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation<
>> http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewf...
>> james_sg sent the following on 9/18/2010 12:24 AM:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Apache Cayenne has the closest match to OFBiz Entity Engine.
>>>
>>> A few points abo...
>>
>
>

Re: why we should have a 10.04 standalone framework release

[BJ Freeman]

to give you an example, when first came to ofbiz and had many DB based 
projects. They already had a data model i had develop over 10 years.
so I did not use the applications or data model, that ofbiz had. I 
induced my data from the db into entity defs and converted the code I 
had into entity and service engines using the minilanq and java.


BJ Freeman sent the following on 9/18/2010 2:02 AM:

Chris I may be dense, but what dependencies do you see from the entity
engine to the rest of ofbiz?
I agree that from the rest of ofbiz the entity engine is core, and is to
me the very reason that ofbiz is great.
But from a framework point of view you can strip away the application
and specialpurpose and build anything you want on top of the framework.
which is why it is called a framework.

outside of the base and supporting files in framework, you could
probably reemove 50% of the framework and still have the entiy engine work.

So is it just a technical thing or is there really a gain in what you
are saying?

Just trying to get a Grasp on what you goal and scope is.

chris snow sent the following on 9/18/2010 1:48 AM:

I'm sorry for pushing this off-track by mentioning hibernate. The
important
point is that the technologies aren't important. There are many

technologies that could be used for the entity engine, and as BJ has
pointed

out, the ofbiz entity engine is very good. The problem for me is that the
entity engine is deeply interwined with the rest of ofbiz. These
dependencies need to be managed. Having a more modular ofbiz has
advantages
for ofbiz as a whole and for each module.

On 18 Sep 2010 09:03, "BJ Freeman" wrote:

One of the reason I came to ofbiz was to get away from the bloat of ORM.
if I read the modeler right that is swt based Gui which introduces a
communication layer back to the server, unlike ofbiz being generated
on the
fly into html, from the server.

BTw I have a Commercial Swt Gui Generator and use it for my legacy apps I
converted to ofbiz, as well as the communications layer using JNL.

=
BJ Freeman


Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation<
http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewf...
james_sg sent the following on 9/18/2010 12:24 AM:






Hi all,

Apache Cayenne has the closest match to OFBiz Entity Engine.

A few points abo...

Re: why we should have a 10.04 standalone framework release

[BJ Freeman]

Chris I may be dense, but what dependencies do you see from the entity 
engine to the rest of ofbiz?
I agree that from the rest of ofbiz the entity engine is core, and is to 
me the very reason that ofbiz is great.
But from a framework point of view you can strip away the application 
and specialpurpose and build anything you want on top of the framework.

which is why it is called a framework.

outside of the base and supporting files in framework, you could 
probably reemove 50% of the framework and still have the entiy engine work.


So is it just a technical thing or is there really a gain in what you 
are saying?


Just trying to get a Grasp on what you goal and scope is.

chris snow sent the following on 9/18/2010 1:48 AM:

I'm sorry for pushing this off-track by mentioning hibernate. The important
point is that the technologies aren't important.  There are many
 technologies that could be used for the entity engine, and as BJ has 
pointed

out, the ofbiz entity engine is very good. The problem for me is that the
entity engine is deeply interwined with the rest of ofbiz.  These
dependencies need to be managed.  Having a more modular ofbiz has advantages
for ofbiz as a whole and for each module.

On 18 Sep 2010 09:03, "BJ Freeman"  wrote:

One of the reason I came to ofbiz was to get away from the bloat of ORM.
if I read the modeler right that is swt based Gui which introduces a
communication layer back to the server, unlike ofbiz being generated on the
fly into html, from the server.

BTw I have a Commercial Swt Gui Generator and use it for my legacy apps I
converted to ofbiz, as well as the communications layer using JNL.

=
BJ Freeman


Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation<
http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewf...
james_sg sent the following on 9/18/2010 12:24 AM:






Hi all,

Apache Cayenne has the closest match to OFBiz Entity Engine.

A few points abo...

Re: why we should have a 10.04 standalone framework release

[chris snow]

I'm sorry for pushing this off-track by mentioning hibernate. The important
point is that the technologies aren't important.  There are many
technologies that could be used for the entity engine, and as BJ has pointed
out, the ofbiz entity engine is very good. The problem for me is that the
entity engine is deeply interwined with the rest of ofbiz.  These
dependencies need to be managed.  Having a more modular ofbiz has advantages
for ofbiz as a whole and for each module.

On 18 Sep 2010 09:03, "BJ Freeman"  wrote:

One of the reason I came to ofbiz was to get away from the bloat of ORM.
if I read the modeler right that is swt based Gui which introduces a
communication layer back to the server, unlike ofbiz being generated on the
fly into html, from the server.

BTw I have a Commercial Swt Gui Generator and use it for my legacy apps I
converted to ofbiz, as well as the communications layer using JNL.

=
BJ Freeman


Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation  <
http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewf...
james_sg sent the following on 9/18/2010 12:24 AM:




>
> Hi all,
>
> Apache Cayenne has the closest match to OFBiz Entity Engine.
>
> A few points abo...

Re: why we should have a 10.04 standalone framework release

[james_sg]

Hi BJ,

I treat OFBiz entity engine as an ORM that uses Map for the Object part.

The gui modeler is a desktop application (not sure if it is swt based), that
helps with the editing of the database definition files, and database schema
migration. The gui modeler is not used in the web application, nor does it
use JNLP.

Cayenne also doesn't generate the html forms from the database.

Anyway, I can't think of a strong business case for making entity engine
swappable.
I thought it is worth mentioning Cayenne since it is similar to OFBiz entity
engine.

- james


BJ Freeman wrote:
> 
> One of the reason I came to ofbiz was to get away from the bloat of ORM.
> if I read the modeler right that is swt based Gui which introduces a 
> communication layer back to the server, unlike ofbiz being generated on 
> the fly into html, from the server.
> 
> BTw I have a Commercial Swt Gui Generator and use it for my legacy apps 
> I converted to ofbiz, as well as the communications layer using JNL.
> 
> =
> BJ Freeman
> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation 
> 
> Specialtymarket.com  
> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
> 
> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
> 
> james_sg sent the following on 9/18/2010 12:24 AM:
> 
> 
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Apache Cayenne has the closest match to OFBiz Entity Engine.
>>
>> A few points about Cayenne:
>> 1. Cayenne has generic object while OFBiz has Generic Value.
>> 2. Cayene has DerivedDbEntity (depreciating) to OFBiz's View Entity.
>> 3. Cayenne has a gui modeler to map the database.
>> 4. Cayenne supports applications running in cluster.
>> 5. OFBiz requires the developer to explicitly save each generic value. In
>> Cayenne, the developer to save the Generic Object and any associated
>> Generic
>> Objects are implicitly saved.
>> 6. Like OFBiz, the database definition files for Cayenne can be separated
>> and grouped under domains and combined at runtime.
>> 7. Cayenne gui modeler has function to merge database changes, but OFBiz
>> does that automatically.
>>
>> If there is a need or business case to support the swapping of the entity
>> engine, it should support similar ORM and follows the api used in OFBiz.
>>
>> Also note there is a JPA standard for ORM that uses POJO.
>>
>> Regards,
>> James
>>
>>
>> Scott Gray-2 wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>> Could you explain how you envisage swapping the entity engine with
>>> hibernate considering one uses Maps (GenericValue) and the other uses
>>> POJOs to represent data?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> HotWax Media
>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>
>>> On 18/09/2010, at 1:32 AM, chris snow wrote:
>>>
 I  would see entity engine and service engine as separate modules.

 Each module should have clearly defined api defining how they interact
 with the outside world.  A clearly defined api will facilitate
 swapping parts.  For example, the entity engine could be replaced with
 a hibernate based engine as long as the api was implemented.

 (also there would be a module for Birt)

 On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:06 PM, BJ Freeman 
 wrote:
> to me framework is what has not ability to interact with the real
> world,
> like party, but just the tools.
> so base layer is Entity and service engine.
> Next layer is Webapp and Widgets.
> next layer is Webtools
> next layer is security and common
>
> A person should be able to enable those things that they want for
> their
> application.
>
>
>
> chris snow sent the following on 9/17/2010 4:11 AM:
>>
>> If you follow my instructions for 9.04 that will to a large extent
>> give you framework independence.
>>
>> I think 9.04 makes a good basis for looking at modularising parts of
>> ofbiz.  For example, I would like to see the entity engine live in
>> its
>> own project.  The entity engine from what I remember is currently
>> tightly tied in to performing duties such as reading configuration
>> files.  Based on this, I would next focus on giving the entity engine
>> an api for loading it's global configuration and also component
>> configurations.  That way, the entity engine could be added to ofbiz
>> as a pure jar file and be configured by some other module (e.g. a
>> configuration service).  Isolating parts of the system like the
>> entity
>> engine has a lot of benefits.  For example, BJ Freeman has mentioned
>> improvements to the entity engine such as on the fly entity changes.
>> This would be made much easier if the entity engine was not so deeply
>> intertwined with the rest of the ofbiz code.
>>
>> I think github would be the ideal place for hosting this kind of
>> effort.  That way non ofbiz commiters could more easily contribute.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:49 AM, james_sg

Re: how to automatically invoke the java file whenever ofbiz starts?...

[Scott Gray]

The ofbiz-containers.xml file in /base/
If you create a class that implements org.ofbiz.base.container and register it 
in the containers file like this:

then ofbiz will call init(...) and start() on your class during startup and 
then stop() during shutdown.

The containers are loaded in the order they are listed in the file.

Regards
Scott

HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

On 18/09/2010, at 6:37 PM, saravanan6 wrote:

> 
> Hi scott,
> 
>   Can u tell me abt how to register my java thread class in
> ofbiz-containers.xml?
> 
> Acutually, we have 2 ofbiz containers in the ofbiz folder. which one  i want
> to use?
> 
> Location1 : framework/base/config/ofbiz-container.xml
> Location2 : framework/appserver/config/ofbiz-container.xml
> 
> i am new to ofbiz,,, so, plz explain your thoughts little bit easy ?
> 
> 
> Thanks for your reply and also expecting too
> 
> Thanks & Regards,
> P.SARAVANAN
> 
> -- 
> View this message in context: 
> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/how-to-automatically-invoke-the-java-file-whenever-ofbiz-starts-tp2543570p2544783.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: why we should have a 10.04 standalone framework release

[BJ Freeman]

One of the reason I came to ofbiz was to get away from the bloat of ORM.
if I read the modeler right that is swt based Gui which introduces a 
communication layer back to the server, unlike ofbiz being generated on 
the fly into html, from the server.


BTw I have a Commercial Swt Gui Generator and use it for my legacy apps 
I converted to ofbiz, as well as the communications layer using JNL.


=
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation  

Specialtymarket.com  
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man

james_sg sent the following on 9/18/2010 12:24 AM:




Hi all,

Apache Cayenne has the closest match to OFBiz Entity Engine.

A few points about Cayenne:
1. Cayenne has generic object while OFBiz has Generic Value.
2. Cayene has DerivedDbEntity (depreciating) to OFBiz's View Entity.
3. Cayenne has a gui modeler to map the database.
4. Cayenne supports applications running in cluster.
5. OFBiz requires the developer to explicitly save each generic value. In
Cayenne, the developer to save the Generic Object and any associated Generic
Objects are implicitly saved.
6. Like OFBiz, the database definition files for Cayenne can be separated
and grouped under domains and combined at runtime.
7. Cayenne gui modeler has function to merge database changes, but OFBiz
does that automatically.

If there is a need or business case to support the swapping of the entity
engine, it should support similar ORM and follows the api used in OFBiz.

Also note there is a JPA standard for ORM that uses POJO.

Regards,
James


Scott Gray-2 wrote:


Hi Chris,

Could you explain how you envisage swapping the entity engine with
hibernate considering one uses Maps (GenericValue) and the other uses
POJOs to represent data?

Thanks
Scott

HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

On 18/09/2010, at 1:32 AM, chris snow wrote:


I  would see entity engine and service engine as separate modules.

Each module should have clearly defined api defining how they interact
with the outside world.  A clearly defined api will facilitate
swapping parts.  For example, the entity engine could be replaced with
a hibernate based engine as long as the api was implemented.

(also there would be a module for Birt)

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:06 PM, BJ Freeman  wrote:

to me framework is what has not ability to interact with the real world,
like party, but just the tools.
so base layer is Entity and service engine.
Next layer is Webapp and Widgets.
next layer is Webtools
next layer is security and common

A person should be able to enable those things that they want for their
application.



chris snow sent the following on 9/17/2010 4:11 AM:


If you follow my instructions for 9.04 that will to a large extent
give you framework independence.

I think 9.04 makes a good basis for looking at modularising parts of
ofbiz.  For example, I would like to see the entity engine live in its
own project.  The entity engine from what I remember is currently
tightly tied in to performing duties such as reading configuration
files.  Based on this, I would next focus on giving the entity engine
an api for loading it's global configuration and also component
configurations.  That way, the entity engine could be added to ofbiz
as a pure jar file and be configured by some other module (e.g. a
configuration service).  Isolating parts of the system like the entity
engine has a lot of benefits.  For example, BJ Freeman has mentioned
improvements to the entity engine such as on the fly entity changes.
This would be made much easier if the entity engine was not so deeply
intertwined with the rest of the ofbiz code.

I think github would be the ideal place for hosting this kind of
effort.  That way non ofbiz commiters could more easily contribute.

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:49 AM, james_sg
wrote:


Hi Chris,

I believe framework separation is a win-win situation and things will
get
sorted out when the common agreement is there.

I am using 9.04. For non-erp project, I have other favorite framework.

-james

Re: why we should have a 10.04 standalone framework release

[james_sg]

Just to add on to point 6. Since the entity in Cayenne can be
programmatically construct, it should be possible to read OFBiz's entity
files.


james_sg wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Apache Cayenne has the closest match to OFBiz Entity Engine. 
> 
> A few points about Cayenne:
> 1. Cayenne has generic object while OFBiz has Generic Value.
> 2. Cayene has DerivedDbEntity (depreciating) to OFBiz's View Entity.
> 3. Cayenne has a gui modeler to map the database.
> 4. Cayenne supports applications running in cluster.
> 5. OFBiz requires the developer to explicitly save each generic value. In
> Cayenne, the developer to save the Generic Object and any associated
> Generic Objects are implicitly saved.
> 6. Like OFBiz, the database definition files for Cayenne can be separated
> and grouped under domains and combined at runtime.
> 7. Cayenne gui modeler has function to merge database changes, but OFBiz
> does that automatically.
> 
> If there is a need or business case to support the swapping of the entity
> engine, it should support similar ORM and follows the api used in OFBiz.
> 
> Also note there is a JPA standard for ORM that uses POJO.
> 
> Regards,
> James
> 
> 
> Scott Gray-2 wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Chris,
>> 
>> Could you explain how you envisage swapping the entity engine with
>> hibernate considering one uses Maps (GenericValue) and the other uses
>> POJOs to represent data?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Scott
>> 
>> HotWax Media
>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>> 
>> On 18/09/2010, at 1:32 AM, chris snow wrote:
>> 
>>> I  would see entity engine and service engine as separate modules.
>>> 
>>> Each module should have clearly defined api defining how they interact
>>> with the outside world.  A clearly defined api will facilitate
>>> swapping parts.  For example, the entity engine could be replaced with
>>> a hibernate based engine as long as the api was implemented.
>>> 
>>> (also there would be a module for Birt)
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:06 PM, BJ Freeman  wrote:
 to me framework is what has not ability to interact with the real
 world,
 like party, but just the tools.
 so base layer is Entity and service engine.
 Next layer is Webapp and Widgets.
 next layer is Webtools
 next layer is security and common
 
 A person should be able to enable those things that they want for their
 application.
 
 
 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/why-we-should-have-a-10-04-standalone-framework-release-tp1568563p2544818.html
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: why we should have a 10.04 standalone framework release

[james_sg]

Hi all,

Apache Cayenne has the closest match to OFBiz Entity Engine. 

A few points about Cayenne:
1. Cayenne has generic object while OFBiz has Generic Value.
2. Cayene has DerivedDbEntity (depreciating) to OFBiz's View Entity.
3. Cayenne has a gui modeler to map the database.
4. Cayenne supports applications running in cluster.
5. OFBiz requires the developer to explicitly save each generic value. In
Cayenne, the developer to save the Generic Object and any associated Generic
Objects are implicitly saved.
6. Like OFBiz, the database definition files for Cayenne can be separated
and grouped under domains and combined at runtime.
7. Cayenne gui modeler has function to merge database changes, but OFBiz
does that automatically.

If there is a need or business case to support the swapping of the entity
engine, it should support similar ORM and follows the api used in OFBiz.

Also note there is a JPA standard for ORM that uses POJO.

Regards,
James


Scott Gray-2 wrote:
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> Could you explain how you envisage swapping the entity engine with
> hibernate considering one uses Maps (GenericValue) and the other uses
> POJOs to represent data?
> 
> Thanks
> Scott
> 
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> 
> On 18/09/2010, at 1:32 AM, chris snow wrote:
> 
>> I  would see entity engine and service engine as separate modules.
>> 
>> Each module should have clearly defined api defining how they interact
>> with the outside world.  A clearly defined api will facilitate
>> swapping parts.  For example, the entity engine could be replaced with
>> a hibernate based engine as long as the api was implemented.
>> 
>> (also there would be a module for Birt)
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:06 PM, BJ Freeman  wrote:
>>> to me framework is what has not ability to interact with the real world,
>>> like party, but just the tools.
>>> so base layer is Entity and service engine.
>>> Next layer is Webapp and Widgets.
>>> next layer is Webtools
>>> next layer is security and common
>>> 
>>> A person should be able to enable those things that they want for their
>>> application.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> chris snow sent the following on 9/17/2010 4:11 AM:
 
 If you follow my instructions for 9.04 that will to a large extent
 give you framework independence.
 
 I think 9.04 makes a good basis for looking at modularising parts of
 ofbiz.  For example, I would like to see the entity engine live in its
 own project.  The entity engine from what I remember is currently
 tightly tied in to performing duties such as reading configuration
 files.  Based on this, I would next focus on giving the entity engine
 an api for loading it's global configuration and also component
 configurations.  That way, the entity engine could be added to ofbiz
 as a pure jar file and be configured by some other module (e.g. a
 configuration service).  Isolating parts of the system like the entity
 engine has a lot of benefits.  For example, BJ Freeman has mentioned
 improvements to the entity engine such as on the fly entity changes.
 This would be made much easier if the entity engine was not so deeply
 intertwined with the rest of the ofbiz code.
 
 I think github would be the ideal place for hosting this kind of
 effort.  That way non ofbiz commiters could more easily contribute.
 
 On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:49 AM, james_sg 
 wrote:
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> I believe framework separation is a win-win situation and things will
> get
> sorted out when the common agreement is there.
> 
> I am using 9.04. For non-erp project, I have other favorite framework.
> 
> -james
> 
> 
>  
> 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/why-we-should-have-a-10-04-standalone-framework-release-tp1568563p2544808.html
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.