Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Brian Topping]

On Jan 20, 2011, at 11:34 PM, David E Jones wrote:

> The point is to avoid the "Tragedy of the Commons" 
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons), which is something 
> that OFBiz suffers from a lot and without splitting the project into dozens 
> of small parts I don't think it can be avoided. The mentality of going to one 
> place to get everything I need or want is just not realistic and results in 
> the tragedy of the commons.

My previous paragraphs of text are summarized by these two sentences...

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Brian Topping]

On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:59 PM, David E Jones wrote:

> Do you really think that is the best idea? Isn't one of the problems with 
> OFBiz that everything is in one big pot, but not all users want the same 
> thing, and so there are constant fights about what should go into the single 
> pot? 
> 
> Maybe it would be better if there were a stable framework and a bunch of 
> separate "pots" sitting on top of it that address different audiences and are 
> driven by different groups with different needs/wants? That would apply to 
> different themes, different UIs, different business domains, etc.

This would have convinced me to go deeper with OFBiz had it existed.  

Personally, I think the right way to connect all the pots is with an ESB.  I 
really like what OFBiz can offer my project as far as existing workflow and 
domain models, and lose interest when I am required to use a tightly-coupled UI 
with it.  

I swear by Wicket, but some others are going to swear by Vaadin or GWT and I 
would choke and turn blue before using them.  We haven't even started 
considering some of the cool stuff available with Grails or what kind of UI 
could be autogenerated from messages.  And whether I would adopt any of these 
UIs if they were accessible as a Maven artifact from a Nexus repository (i.e. 
if I can deploy it to the JVM and don't have to maintain it, why do I care?)

There's no accounting for taste, but the switchboard has to be opened up so 
people can integrate.  That's what an ESB is all about.  

When the "pots" are distributed over an ESB, I don't care whether they are 
running OSGi or running on a hamster wheel, and if one of them is causing me 
problems, I can deal with them as needed, without having an all-or-nothing 
decision to make.  

When my switchboard can connect seamlessly to something like SAP, I can 
convince stakeholders that they are future-proofed to some greater degree.  
Every company that buys into the architecture expands the entire ecosystem in 
the process, everyone wins.

Certainly, when it gets to the domain level, it would be helpful to continue 
with what makes OFBiz great, but XML schema with element overrides makes a for 
a far better and more portable representation than anything we could cook 
ourselves.  OMG standards for metadata, such as CWM [1] are conceptually far 
more powerful than anything we could dream up on our own and have existing tool 
support, which is better than starting from zero.  Even if we just modeled our 
own after CWM concepts, we'd be further ahead of the current unique method, 
however open.  

If we end up with Maven artifacts that form APIs to deal with the domain 
through such means, people can mix and match artifacts for custom solutions.  
As well, other projects will start reusing OFBiz subprojects, further 
increasing the connectedness and vitality of the ecosystem.

I'm interested in how / where I am missing the boat on this, but I feel like 
this old architecture is holding everyone back.  At some point, the pressure on 
it will be too great to resist even the combined inertia of the available OFBiz 
solutions, it's just a matter of when.

Brian

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Warehouse_Metamodel

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[David E Jones]

On Jan 20, 2011, at 11:08 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones  wrote:
>> On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:52 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>> 
>>> Two new projects were started - OpenTaps and Moqui.
>>> 
>>> Speaking personally (and I stress personally - I'm not
>> speaking on behalf of the OFBiz community) that sort of
>> thing is counter-productive. I know the authors of both of
>> those projects and I consider them friends. I'm also very
>> familiar with the projects themselves.
>>> 
>>> It's easy to just scrap existing code (or an
>> established community) in frustration and start another
>> project. It's hard to find a migration path that continues
>> to embrace new technologies without causing undue hardship
>> on the existing installed base.
>>> 
>>> It would be better if we could find a middle ground -
>> a compromise - that keeps the talent and innovation in a
>> single project, instead of scattering it into competing
>> projects.
>> 
>> Do you really think that is the best idea? Isn't one of the
>> problems with OFBiz that everything is in one big pot, but
>> not all users want the same thing, and so there are constant
>> fights about what should go into the single pot? 
>> 
>> Maybe it would be better if there were a stable framework
>> and a bunch of separate "pots" sitting on top of it that
>> address different audiences and are driven by different
>> groups with different needs/wants? That would apply to
>> different themes, different UIs, different business domains,
>> etc.
> 
> That sounds wonderful! Why not do it in a project that has been around for 10 
> years and has a considerable user base and developer base?
> 
> OFBiz and your vision are not mutually exclusive.

In a way they are. The whole point is to not have anything like a single 
project. There would be a framework project, and a data model project, and then 
everything else (themes, applications, reusable elements for use in 
applications, etc, etc) would all be separate projects.

The point is to grow an ecosystem on a strong foundation and encourage people 
to do there own thing in separate projects that easily work with others built 
on the same foundation.

The point is to avoid the "Tragedy of the Commons" 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons), which is something that 
OFBiz suffers from a lot and without splitting the project into dozens of small 
parts I don't think it can be avoided. The mentality of going to one place to 
get everything I need or want is just not realistic and results in the tragedy 
of the commons.

-David

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Adrian Crum]

--- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones  wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:52 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> 
> > Two new projects were started - OpenTaps and Moqui.
> > 
> > Speaking personally (and I stress personally - I'm not
> speaking on behalf of the OFBiz community) that sort of
> thing is counter-productive. I know the authors of both of
> those projects and I consider them friends. I'm also very
> familiar with the projects themselves.
> > 
> > It's easy to just scrap existing code (or an
> established community) in frustration and start another
> project. It's hard to find a migration path that continues
> to embrace new technologies without causing undue hardship
> on the existing installed base.
> > 
> > It would be better if we could find a middle ground -
> a compromise - that keeps the talent and innovation in a
> single project, instead of scattering it into competing
> projects.
> 
> Do you really think that is the best idea? Isn't one of the
> problems with OFBiz that everything is in one big pot, but
> not all users want the same thing, and so there are constant
> fights about what should go into the single pot? 
> 
> Maybe it would be better if there were a stable framework
> and a bunch of separate "pots" sitting on top of it that
> address different audiences and are driven by different
> groups with different needs/wants? That would apply to
> different themes, different UIs, different business domains,
> etc.

That sounds wonderful! Why not do it in a project that has been around for 10 
years and has a considerable user base and developer base?

OFBiz and your vision are not mutually exclusive.

-Adrian




  

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[David E Jones]

On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:52 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> Two new projects were started - OpenTaps and Moqui.
> 
> Speaking personally (and I stress personally - I'm not speaking on behalf of 
> the OFBiz community) that sort of thing is counter-productive. I know the 
> authors of both of those projects and I consider them friends. I'm also very 
> familiar with the projects themselves.
> 
> It's easy to just scrap existing code (or an established community) in 
> frustration and start another project. It's hard to find a migration path 
> that continues to embrace new technologies without causing undue hardship on 
> the existing installed base.
> 
> It would be better if we could find a middle ground - a compromise - that 
> keeps the talent and innovation in a single project, instead of scattering it 
> into competing projects.

Do you really think that is the best idea? Isn't one of the problems with OFBiz 
that everything is in one big pot, but not all users want the same thing, and 
so there are constant fights about what should go into the single pot? 

Maybe it would be better if there were a stable framework and a bunch of 
separate "pots" sitting on top of it that address different audiences and are 
driven by different groups with different needs/wants? That would apply to 
different themes, different UIs, different business domains, etc.

-David

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[David E Jones]

On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:30 PM, Brian Topping wrote:

> 
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> 
>> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones  wrote:
>>> What the project needs is cutoff points at major revision
>>> releases after which attempts at backward compatibility are
>>> totally abandoned in favor of making something better.
>> 
>> Why don't we discuss that further? Perhaps in a new thread?
> 
> Naive question, but has it ever been considered to put the existing system in 
> legacy mode and start a new project?  One of the attractive aspects of OFBiz 
> is it's very comprehensive.  One of the difficult aspects is it doesn't take 
> advantage of any recent packaging technologies like Spring or OSGi or 
> presentation technologies that would work well with recent browser 
> capabilities.  I can't imagine that the optimal solution remains one that was 
> architected before any of these technologies were mature.

When you say this do you mean to start over and rebuild the OFBiz 
business/application functionality on an existing full-featured framework (or 
as close as current frameworks come to that...) like the JBoss Seam stack?

Or do you mean to create a new framework using some of the newer tools that are 
available? If so, could you be more specific about the tools you'd like to you? 
You mentioned presentation technologies, which ones do you like?

In a way I'm doing something that might be like what you are suggesting 
(depending on details of what you had in mind). Right now there is no framework 
that uses the same concepts and design goals as the OFBiz Framework, but there 
are many new tools it could use and many cleanups and redesigns the framework 
could use, so I have started a new framework project called Moqui 
(www.moqui.org) that is a refresh of the OFBiz Framework as a stand-alone 
package (and it uses Groovy a LOT as the default language for expressions, XML 
actions are translated to Groovy, and the framework itself is implemented in 
Groovy). 

Once that is further along I plan to start a _separate_ project that has a data 
model and some basic business services. And once that is further along I plan 
to start, or work with others to start, a series of domain-specific application 
projects that are all build on the same data model and framework, and can share 
data with other applications and run in the same container and so on.

Anyway... in spite of actions in that direction I'd be interested in seeing 
more thoughts that people have on the topic.

-David

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Adrian Crum]

Two new projects were started - OpenTaps and Moqui.

Speaking personally (and I stress personally - I'm not speaking on behalf of 
the OFBiz community) that sort of thing is counter-productive. I know the 
authors of both of those projects and I consider them friends. I'm also very 
familiar with the projects themselves.

It's easy to just scrap existing code (or an established community) in 
frustration and start another project. It's hard to find a migration path that 
continues to embrace new technologies without causing undue hardship on the 
existing installed base.

It would be better if we could find a middle ground - a compromise - that keeps 
the talent and innovation in a single project, instead of scattering it into 
competing projects.

-Adrian


--- On Thu, 1/20/11, Brian Topping  wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> 
> > --- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones 
> wrote:
> >> What the project needs is cutoff points at major
> revision
> >> releases after which attempts at backward
> compatibility are
> >> totally abandoned in favor of making something
> better.
> > 
> > Why don't we discuss that further? Perhaps in a new
> thread?
> 
> Naive question, but has it ever been considered to put the
> existing system in legacy mode and start a new
> project?  One of the attractive aspects of OFBiz is
> it's very comprehensive.  One of the difficult aspects
> is it doesn't take advantage of any recent packaging
> technologies like Spring or OSGi or presentation
> technologies that would work well with recent browser
> capabilities.  I can't imagine that the optimal
> solution remains one that was architected before any of
> these technologies were mature.
> 
> Brian

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Brian Topping]

On Jan 20, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones  wrote:
>> What the project needs is cutoff points at major revision
>> releases after which attempts at backward compatibility are
>> totally abandoned in favor of making something better.
> 
> Why don't we discuss that further? Perhaps in a new thread?

Naive question, but has it ever been considered to put the existing system in 
legacy mode and start a new project?  One of the attractive aspects of OFBiz is 
it's very comprehensive.  One of the difficult aspects is it doesn't take 
advantage of any recent packaging technologies like Spring or OSGi or 
presentation technologies that would work well with recent browser 
capabilities.  I can't imagine that the optimal solution remains one that was 
architected before any of these technologies were mature.

Brian

Re: Tossing Backward Compatibility (was Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?)

[Adrian Crum]

Cool - thanks.

I agree there are a lot of things that can be changed that will improve the 
project greatly - but at the same time those changes will break backward 
compatibility. I'm sure many of the developers have lists like David's that 
contain things they would like to change, but they are hesitant to do so 
because it might break backward compatibility.

Before this thread gets inundated with developer's wish lists, I would like to 
suggest that we address one single simple issue first:

Would you, as an end user of OFBiz, knowing that the OFBiz project could be 
improved greatly - but at the cost of some backward incompatibility - accept 
the changes? If yes, how often would backwards-incompatible changes be 
acceptable? David suggested major revisions. Is that reasonable? Any other 
ideas?

I'm asking end users - not committers or PMC members (we've already had this 
discussion).

My experience with the developer community has convinced me that they are open 
to the opinions and suggestions of end users. So let's discuss, debate, reach 
an agreement, and move forward from there.

-Adrian


--- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones  wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> 
> > --- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones 
> wrote:
> >> What the project needs is cutoff points at major
> revision
> >> releases after which attempts at backward
> compatibility are
> >> totally abandoned in favor of making something
> better.
> > 
> > Why don't we discuss that further? Perhaps in a new
> thread?
> 
> Okay, here's the new thread.
> 
> To kick it off there are probably lots of facets of this to
> discuss, but the biggest question (IMO) is: what will we get
> rid of? Another way of looking at that is: how will we
> decide what to get rid of?
> 
> This gets even trickier as time goes on and new things are
> introduced that are alternatives to old things. One example
> is the FTL macro based widget renderers... the old ones can
> go away. Another would by the Query Builder that Scott was
> working on (OFBIZ-4053), and that could result in getting
> rid of a bunch of stuff in the Delegator and
> GenericDelegator. There are also hundreds of methods that
> simply the same as another method in the same class but with
> fewer arguments and defaults for the missing arguments, and
> tons of those can and should go away (many are there for
> backward compatibility only).
> 
> But is any of this really doable in OFBiz given desires and
> priorities of the community?
> 
> Heck, we have complaints about EVERYTHING. Constant
> complaints about every little change. If all of the
> delegator.find* methods are suddenly gone... just imagine
> the complaints (well, not to mention the refactoring of code
> in OFBiz itself!).
> 
> We have complaints about formatting changes in code. We
> have complaints about any and all refactoring changes
> (moving code, renaming, splitting up or combining methods or
> classes).
> 
> What about getting rid of the dozens of totally useless
> util classes in OFBiz? Most of them could (and maybe should)
> be tossed in favor of other open source stuff, or even
> better in favor of new features in Java or that are handled
> inherently in Groovy or other tools used a lot in OFBiz.
> 
> How about making things more consistent in OFBiz by using
> groovy for all expressions and such? We could get rid of the
> BSH defaults, the UEL stuff, and so on. Yeah, I know a lot
> of work has gone into these things... but consider the state
> of things now and the pain involved in using some of these
> cumbersome tools.
> 
> Of course, is this even doable... and worth it? Could we
> even retest all of the code that would be affected by these
> lower level changes? Could we do this without huge efforts
> in branches? Because the framework and applications are tied
> together we can't easily advance the framework freely and
> then once we like it do a feature freeze and start getting
> the applications/etc to catch up.
> 
> Stepping back I guess the real question is: can we even do
> these sorts of things at this point in the life of the
> project?
> 
> The jQuery branch is an interesting example. I think that
> worked because it was a change with relatively few touch
> points, and only a couple of people were interested in it so
> everyone else left them alone while they worked on it. But
> what about bigger changes that result in a need for changes
> in thousands of lines of existing code?
> 
> -David
> 
> 
> 


  

Tossing Backward Compatibility (was Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?)

[David E Jones]

On Jan 20, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones  wrote:
>> What the project needs is cutoff points at major revision
>> releases after which attempts at backward compatibility are
>> totally abandoned in favor of making something better.
> 
> Why don't we discuss that further? Perhaps in a new thread?

Okay, here's the new thread.

To kick it off there are probably lots of facets of this to discuss, but the 
biggest question (IMO) is: what will we get rid of? Another way of looking at 
that is: how will we decide what to get rid of?

This gets even trickier as time goes on and new things are introduced that are 
alternatives to old things. One example is the FTL macro based widget 
renderers... the old ones can go away. Another would by the Query Builder that 
Scott was working on (OFBIZ-4053), and that could result in getting rid of a 
bunch of stuff in the Delegator and GenericDelegator. There are also hundreds 
of methods that simply the same as another method in the same class but with 
fewer arguments and defaults for the missing arguments, and tons of those can 
and should go away (many are there for backward compatibility only).

But is any of this really doable in OFBiz given desires and priorities of the 
community?

Heck, we have complaints about EVERYTHING. Constant complaints about every 
little change. If all of the delegator.find* methods are suddenly gone... just 
imagine the complaints (well, not to mention the refactoring of code in OFBiz 
itself!).

We have complaints about formatting changes in code. We have complaints about 
any and all refactoring changes (moving code, renaming, splitting up or 
combining methods or classes).

What about getting rid of the dozens of totally useless util classes in OFBiz? 
Most of them could (and maybe should) be tossed in favor of other open source 
stuff, or even better in favor of new features in Java or that are handled 
inherently in Groovy or other tools used a lot in OFBiz.

How about making things more consistent in OFBiz by using groovy for all 
expressions and such? We could get rid of the BSH defaults, the UEL stuff, and 
so on. Yeah, I know a lot of work has gone into these things... but consider 
the state of things now and the pain involved in using some of these cumbersome 
tools.

Of course, is this even doable... and worth it? Could we even retest all of the 
code that would be affected by these lower level changes? Could we do this 
without huge efforts in branches? Because the framework and applications are 
tied together we can't easily advance the framework freely and then once we 
like it do a feature freeze and start getting the applications/etc to catch up.

Stepping back I guess the real question is: can we even do these sorts of 
things at this point in the life of the project?

The jQuery branch is an interesting example. I think that worked because it was 
a change with relatively few touch points, and only a couple of people were 
interested in it so everyone else left them alone while they worked on it. But 
what about bigger changes that result in a need for changes in thousands of 
lines of existing code?

-David

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Adrian Crum]

--- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones  wrote:
> What the project needs is cutoff points at major revision
> releases after which attempts at backward compatibility are
> totally abandoned in favor of making something better.

Why don't we discuss that further? Perhaps in a new thread?

-Adrian



  

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Adrian Crum]

Technology continues to march forward. Some people find it hard to keep up.

-Adrian

--- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones  wrote:
> Before saying anything else, let me clarify that I don't
> disagree with this sentiment.
> 
> The big question seems to be what is the "clue" that
> everyone wishes the PMC has?
> 
> Personally, I now disagree with the whole model and doubt
> any redemption for it. Even if there were perfect people on
> the PMC (which is clearly impossible, and the current PMC is
> mostly made up of attempts to do anything to get as many
> people involved as possible): when there is no design to
> implement to and the scope is not very narrowly defined it
> is impossible to keep everyone happy. That's why most ASF
> projects are not like OFBiz with broad scope and business
> focus and a lot of design to be done, they are generally
> implementations of public specifications.
> 
> Is that the clue?
> 
> Maybe a better question is: what is the dream world people
> think they are going to find here?
> 
> Why is anyone surprised?
> 
> Well, for those interested the model I'm going for now is
> quite different, see the "Model: License? Resources?"
> section on the www.moqui.org web site.
> 
> That said, I mentioned above that I don't disagree with the
> sentiment. However, I think it is presented in a piss poor
> way by everyone who is acting like a whining little child
> here. Get a life. If it's a big deal to you then solve the
> problem and stop complaining and whining. Get a grip on
> reality. There are all sorts of things you could do about
> this that don't require trying to push the project. Anyone
> could grab the old theme and post it to any of dozens of
> free hosting places, or just on a wiki page or Jira issue.
> People could even collaborate to reduce the burden on any
> individual. This isn't rocket science.
> 
> This is what is so ridiculous. Almost no one cares about
> handling general needs over specific ones and keeping things
> flexible. Almost no one cares about what anyone else needs.
> And why should it be any different? Those who think things
> should be a certain or another just want a free ride and
> won't lift a finger beyond childish complaints and personal
> attacks to get anything done. This sort of situation is
> EXACTLY what should be expected in this model.
> 
> Still, there are solutions to all of this and rewards for
> those creative and hard-working enough to get them done.
> There is pretty much always a solution once the real problem
> is confessed. There's also a market out there for pretty
> much anything related to this, since currently there aren't
> many people using some sort of violence to stop any of this.
> That's the beauty of the real world.
> 
> -David
> 
> 
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 7:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
> 
> > Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience
> the PMC does live in a vacuum. As the saying goes...you guys
> "don't have a clue".
> > Just my 2 cents.
> > Ruth
> > 
> > On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >> That's not true. Every change is discussed and
> debated.
> >> 
> >> The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a
> vacuum - they have production systems to maintain. It is
> silly to think they would not consider those production
> systems when proposing changes.
> >> 
> >> -Adrian
> >> 
> >> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman 
> wrote:
> >>> you will find that the ofbiz
> >>> developer group first priority is to change
> >>> before considering the effect on production
> systemm using
> >>> offbiz.
> >>> something I lobby against, but has little
> effect.
> >>> so I have a system to accomplish this
> regardless of what
> >>> they do.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> =
> >>> BJ Freeman
> >>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier
> Automation
> >>> 
> >>> Specialtymarket.com
> >>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
> >>> 
> >>> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:
>  But why delete it?  Alot of folks
> learned ofbiz
> >>> on flatgrey, and their
>  employees are used to it.  At least
> keep it
> >>> around as flatgrey_old.
>  On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian
> Crum
> >>> wrote:
> > That theme was starting to look old,
> so the
> >>> developer community decided to
> > update it.
> > 
> > If you prefer the old version of the
> theme, you
> >>> are welcome to replace the
> > new one with it.
> > 
> > -Adrian
> > 
> > On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:
> >> I just loaded trunk and discovered
> that the
> >>> normal flatgrey theme has
> >> been completely redefined. 
> What
> >>> happened?  I thought it was actually
> >> the best theme that was very well
> >>> organized.  Is there a way to get it
> >> back?
> >> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> 
> 

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[David E Jones]

I couldn't disagree more. The OFBiz code base is a NIGHTMARE because of 
attempts at backward compatibility. This makes it incredibly difficult to 
customize because everything you look at has high levels of redundancy (causing 
all sorts of bugs and inconsistencies), and everything you touch breaks a 
couple of other things.

What the project needs is cutoff points at major revision releases after which 
attempts at backward compatibility are totally abandoned in favor of making 
something better.

However, in a community driven project that just ain't gonna happen, for lots 
of reasons.

So, those of you who like backward compatibility just look around that the 
incredible bulk of the project that has caused. OFBiz could be about 1/4 the 
size it is now with the same, or even more, functionality.

Is that really worth all the backward compatibility?

What if all of that bulk and ugliness and confusion causing stuff kills the 
project as leaner and better alternatives become available?

Is that really worth the backward compatibility?

-David


On Jan 20, 2011, at 8:25 PM, Mike wrote:

> Not to completely agree with Ruth and BJ [grin]...
> 
> However on a practical viewpoint, all of the existing documentation of
> OFBiz, including two hardcopy books (one of them Ruths) and countless
> other PDFs (Ruths, etc..) and other sources of documentation shows the
> flatgrey theme for screenshot examples.  In addition, there are
> (probably) various other organizational training manuals that exist
> which would use flatgrey as screenshot examples (click here, etc.).
> What about all the suppliers that have back-end access, do we also
> have to instruct them about the new theme?  What about their training
> manuals? This was a HUGE change IMHO.
> 
> So it's not the new theme, it's the deletion of the old one that's the
> issue.  From from day one, I tried all the other themes and I still
> prefer the flatgrey, because I think it was a well thought out
> navigation system.   Dave did an excellent job tying all the functions
> together into a nice, logical layout.  The multiple tabs really work
> for me.
> 
> It's ok to change the default theme, but please let's not break the
> backward compatibility of OFBiz's supporting infrastructure.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman  wrote:
>> Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience the PMC does live in a
>> vacuum. As the saying goes...you guys "don't have a clue".
>> Just my 2 cents.
>> Ruth
>> 
>> On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> 
>>> That's not true. Every change is discussed and debated.
>>> 
>>> The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a vacuum - they have
>>> production systems to maintain. It is silly to think they would not consider
>>> those production systems when proposing changes.
>>> 
>>> -Adrian
>>> 
>>> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman  wrote:
 
 you will find that the ofbiz
 developer group first priority is to change
 before considering the effect on production systemm using
 offbiz.
 something I lobby against, but has little effect.
 so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what
 they do.
 
 
 =
 BJ Freeman
 Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
 
 Specialtymarket.com
 Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
 
 Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
 
 
 Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:
> 
> But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned ofbiz
 
 on flatgrey, and their
> 
> employees are used to it.  At least keep it
 
 around as flatgrey_old.
> 
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum
 
 wrote:
>> 
>> That theme was starting to look old, so the
 
 developer community decided to
>> 
>> update it.
>> 
>> If you prefer the old version of the theme, you
 
 are welcome to replace the
>> 
>> new one with it.
>> 
>> -Adrian
>> 
>> On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:
>>> 
>>> I just loaded trunk and discovered that the
 
 normal flatgrey theme has
>>> 
>>> been completely redefined.  What
 
 happened?  I thought it was actually
>>> 
>>> the best theme that was very well
 
 organized.  Is there a way to get it
>>> 
>>> back?
>>> 
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Adrian Crum]

I don't see where any backward compatibility was broken - unless you are 
referring to the screenshots in Ruth's books. By the way, I believe those books 
are based on release 9.04 - which has the previous version of the Flat Grey 
theme. It's also interesting to note that the release 9.04 Flat Grey theme 
replaced an earlier (uglier IMO) one.

The updated Flat Grey theme has all of the same elements in the same locations 
- with the exception of the user preference settings links. The new theme has 
new colors and background images, otherwise it's the same.

-Adrian

--- On Thu, 1/20/11, Mike  wrote:
> Not to completely agree with Ruth and
> BJ [grin]...
> 
> However on a practical viewpoint, all of the existing
> documentation of
> OFBiz, including two hardcopy books (one of them Ruths) and
> countless
> other PDFs (Ruths, etc..) and other sources of
> documentation shows the
> flatgrey theme for screenshot examples.  In addition,
> there are
> (probably) various other organizational training manuals
> that exist
> which would use flatgrey as screenshot examples (click
> here, etc.).
> What about all the suppliers that have back-end access, do
> we also
> have to instruct them about the new theme?  What about
> their training
> manuals? This was a HUGE change IMHO.
> 
> So it's not the new theme, it's the deletion of the old one
> that's the
> issue.  From from day one, I tried all the other
> themes and I still
> prefer the flatgrey, because I think it was a well thought
> out
> navigation system.   Dave did an excellent
> job tying all the functions
> together into a nice, logical layout.  The multiple
> tabs really work
> for me.
> 
> It's ok to change the default theme, but please let's not
> break the
> backward compatibility of OFBiz's supporting
> infrastructure.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman 
> wrote:
> > Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience
> the PMC does live in a
> > vacuum. As the saying goes...you guys "don't have a
> clue".
> > Just my 2 cents.
> > Ruth
> >
> > On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >>
> >> That's not true. Every change is discussed and
> debated.
> >>
> >> The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a
> vacuum - they have
> >> production systems to maintain. It is silly to
> think they would not consider
> >> those production systems when proposing changes.
> >>
> >> -Adrian
> >>
> >> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman
>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> you will find that the ofbiz
> >>> developer group first priority is to change
> >>> before considering the effect on production
> systemm using
> >>> offbiz.
> >>> something I lobby against, but has little
> effect.
> >>> so I have a system to accomplish this
> regardless of what
> >>> they do.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> =
> >>> BJ Freeman
> >>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier
> Automation
> >>> 
> >>> Specialtymarket.com
> >>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
> >>>
> >>> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:
> 
>  But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned
> ofbiz
> >>>
> >>> on flatgrey, and their
> 
>  employees are used to it.  At least keep
> it
> >>>
> >>> around as flatgrey_old.
> 
>  On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian
> Crum
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >
> > That theme was starting to look old,
> so the
> >>>
> >>> developer community decided to
> >
> > update it.
> >
> > If you prefer the old version of the
> theme, you
> >>>
> >>> are welcome to replace the
> >
> > new one with it.
> >
> > -Adrian
> >
> > On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:
> >>
> >> I just loaded trunk and discovered
> that the
> >>>
> >>> normal flatgrey theme has
> >>
> >> been completely redefined.  What
> >>>
> >>> happened?  I thought it was actually
> >>
> >> the best theme that was very well
> >>>
> >>> organized.  Is there a way to get it
> >>
> >> back?
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[David E Jones]

Before saying anything else, let me clarify that I don't disagree with this 
sentiment.

The big question seems to be what is the "clue" that everyone wishes the PMC 
has?

Personally, I now disagree with the whole model and doubt any redemption for 
it. Even if there were perfect people on the PMC (which is clearly impossible, 
and the current PMC is mostly made up of attempts to do anything to get as many 
people involved as possible): when there is no design to implement to and the 
scope is not very narrowly defined it is impossible to keep everyone happy. 
That's why most ASF projects are not like OFBiz with broad scope and business 
focus and a lot of design to be done, they are generally implementations of 
public specifications.

Is that the clue?

Maybe a better question is: what is the dream world people think they are going 
to find here?

Why is anyone surprised?

Well, for those interested the model I'm going for now is quite different, see 
the "Model: License? Resources?" section on the www.moqui.org web site.

That said, I mentioned above that I don't disagree with the sentiment. However, 
I think it is presented in a piss poor way by everyone who is acting like a 
whining little child here. Get a life. If it's a big deal to you then solve the 
problem and stop complaining and whining. Get a grip on reality. There are all 
sorts of things you could do about this that don't require trying to push the 
project. Anyone could grab the old theme and post it to any of dozens of free 
hosting places, or just on a wiki page or Jira issue. People could even 
collaborate to reduce the burden on any individual. This isn't rocket science.

This is what is so ridiculous. Almost no one cares about handling general needs 
over specific ones and keeping things flexible. Almost no one cares about what 
anyone else needs. And why should it be any different? Those who think things 
should be a certain or another just want a free ride and won't lift a finger 
beyond childish complaints and personal attacks to get anything done. This sort 
of situation is EXACTLY what should be expected in this model.

Still, there are solutions to all of this and rewards for those creative and 
hard-working enough to get them done. There is pretty much always a solution 
once the real problem is confessed. There's also a market out there for pretty 
much anything related to this, since currently there aren't many people using 
some sort of violence to stop any of this. That's the beauty of the real world.

-David


On Jan 20, 2011, at 7:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:

> Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience the PMC does live in a 
> vacuum. As the saying goes...you guys "don't have a clue".
> Just my 2 cents.
> Ruth
> 
> On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>> That's not true. Every change is discussed and debated.
>> 
>> The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a vacuum - they have 
>> production systems to maintain. It is silly to think they would not consider 
>> those production systems when proposing changes.
>> 
>> -Adrian
>> 
>> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman  wrote:
>>> you will find that the ofbiz
>>> developer group first priority is to change
>>> before considering the effect on production systemm using
>>> offbiz.
>>> something I lobby against, but has little effect.
>>> so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what
>>> they do.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> =
>>> BJ Freeman
>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
>>> 
>>> Specialtymarket.com
>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>> 
>>> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:
 But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned ofbiz
>>> on flatgrey, and their
 employees are used to it.  At least keep it
>>> around as flatgrey_old.
 On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum
>>> wrote:
> That theme was starting to look old, so the
>>> developer community decided to
> update it.
> 
> If you prefer the old version of the theme, you
>>> are welcome to replace the
> new one with it.
> 
> -Adrian
> 
> On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:
>> I just loaded trunk and discovered that the
>>> normal flatgrey theme has
>> been completely redefined.  What
>>> happened?  I thought it was actually
>> the best theme that was very well
>>> organized.  Is there a way to get it
>> back?
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Mike]

Not to completely agree with Ruth and BJ [grin]...

However on a practical viewpoint, all of the existing documentation of
OFBiz, including two hardcopy books (one of them Ruths) and countless
other PDFs (Ruths, etc..) and other sources of documentation shows the
flatgrey theme for screenshot examples.  In addition, there are
(probably) various other organizational training manuals that exist
which would use flatgrey as screenshot examples (click here, etc.).
What about all the suppliers that have back-end access, do we also
have to instruct them about the new theme?  What about their training
manuals? This was a HUGE change IMHO.

So it's not the new theme, it's the deletion of the old one that's the
issue.  From from day one, I tried all the other themes and I still
prefer the flatgrey, because I think it was a well thought out
navigation system.   Dave did an excellent job tying all the functions
together into a nice, logical layout.  The multiple tabs really work
for me.

It's ok to change the default theme, but please let's not break the
backward compatibility of OFBiz's supporting infrastructure.


On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Ruth Hoffman  wrote:
> Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience the PMC does live in a
> vacuum. As the saying goes...you guys "don't have a clue".
> Just my 2 cents.
> Ruth
>
> On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>
>> That's not true. Every change is discussed and debated.
>>
>> The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a vacuum - they have
>> production systems to maintain. It is silly to think they would not consider
>> those production systems when proposing changes.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> --- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman  wrote:
>>>
>>> you will find that the ofbiz
>>> developer group first priority is to change
>>> before considering the effect on production systemm using
>>> offbiz.
>>> something I lobby against, but has little effect.
>>> so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what
>>> they do.
>>>
>>>
>>> =
>>> BJ Freeman
>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
>>> 
>>> Specialtymarket.com
>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>
>>> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:

 But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned ofbiz
>>>
>>> on flatgrey, and their

 employees are used to it.  At least keep it
>>>
>>> around as flatgrey_old.

 On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum
>>>
>>> wrote:
>
> That theme was starting to look old, so the
>>>
>>> developer community decided to
>
> update it.
>
> If you prefer the old version of the theme, you
>>>
>>> are welcome to replace the
>
> new one with it.
>
> -Adrian
>
> On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:
>>
>> I just loaded trunk and discovered that the
>>>
>>> normal flatgrey theme has
>>
>> been completely redefined.  What
>>>
>>> happened?  I thought it was actually
>>
>> the best theme that was very well
>>>
>>> organized.  Is there a way to get it
>>
>> back?
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Ruth Hoffman]

Yeah you do...live in a vacuum. IMHO and experience the PMC does live in 
a vacuum. As the saying goes...you guys "don't have a clue".

Just my 2 cents.
Ruth

On 1/20/11 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

That's not true. Every change is discussed and debated.

The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a vacuum - they have production 
systems to maintain. It is silly to think they would not consider those 
production systems when proposing changes.

-Adrian

--- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman  wrote:

you will find that the ofbiz
developer group first priority is to change
before considering the effect on production systemm using
offbiz.
something I lobby against, but has little effect.
so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what
they do.


=
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation

Specialtymarket.com
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man


Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:

But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned ofbiz

on flatgrey, and their

employees are used to it.  At least keep it

around as flatgrey_old.

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum

wrote:

That theme was starting to look old, so the

developer community decided to

update it.

If you prefer the old version of the theme, you

are welcome to replace the

new one with it.

-Adrian

On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:

I just loaded trunk and discovered that the

normal flatgrey theme has

been completely redefined.  What

happened?  I thought it was actually

the best theme that was very well

organized.  Is there a way to get it

back?

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Adrian Crum]

That's not true. Every change is discussed and debated.

The OFBiz developers and the PMC don't live in a vacuum - they have production 
systems to maintain. It is silly to think they would not consider those 
production systems when proposing changes.

-Adrian

--- On Thu, 1/20/11, BJ Freeman  wrote:
> you will find that the ofbiz
> developer group first priority is to change 
> before considering the effect on production systemm using
> offbiz.
> something I lobby against, but has little effect.
> so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what
> they do.
> 
> 
> =
> BJ Freeman
> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation 
> 
> Specialtymarket.com  
> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
> 
> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
> 
> 
> Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:
> > But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned ofbiz
> on flatgrey, and their
> > employees are used to it.  At least keep it
> around as flatgrey_old.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum 
> wrote:
> >> That theme was starting to look old, so the
> developer community decided to
> >> update it.
> >>
> >> If you prefer the old version of the theme, you
> are welcome to replace the
> >> new one with it.
> >>
> >> -Adrian
> >>
> >> On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I just loaded trunk and discovered that the
> normal flatgrey theme has
> >>> been completely redefined.  What
> happened?  I thought it was actually
> >>> the best theme that was very well
> organized.  Is there a way to get it
> >>> back?
> >>>
> >>
> >
> 
> 

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[BJ Freeman]

you will find that the ofbiz developer group first priority is to change 
before considering the effect on production systemm using offbiz.

something I lobby against, but has little effect.
so I have a system to accomplish this regardless of what they do.


=
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation  

Specialtymarket.com  
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man


Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:38 PM:

But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned ofbiz on flatgrey, and their
employees are used to it.  At least keep it around as flatgrey_old.

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum  wrote:

That theme was starting to look old, so the developer community decided to
update it.

If you prefer the old version of the theme, you are welcome to replace the
new one with it.

-Adrian

On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:


I just loaded trunk and discovered that the normal flatgrey theme has
been completely redefined.  What happened?  I thought it was actually
the best theme that was very well organized.  Is there a way to get it
back?

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[BJ Freeman]

see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4092
look in eclipse for history of the flatgrey folder
you can revert to 1044065 which is just before the Jquery merge
or you can download a zip file before 1044065 then copy the flat grey to 
your copy.



=
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation  

Specialtymarket.com  
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
Mike sent the following on 1/20/2011 3:21 PM:


I just loaded trunk and discovered that the normal flatgrey theme has
been completely redefined.  What happened?  I thought it was actually
the best theme that was very well organized.  Is there a way to get it
back?

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Adrian Crum]

The updated theme moved the user preferences to the footer and changed 
the look. Other than that, the functionality is still the same - all 
menus and buttons are still in the same location.


-Adrian

On 1/20/2011 3:38 PM, Mike wrote:

But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned ofbiz on flatgrey, and their
employees are used to it.  At least keep it around as flatgrey_old.

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum  wrote:

That theme was starting to look old, so the developer community decided to
update it.

If you prefer the old version of the theme, you are welcome to replace the
new one with it.

-Adrian

On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:


I just loaded trunk and discovered that the normal flatgrey theme has
been completely redefined.  What happened?  I thought it was actually
the best theme that was very well organized.  Is there a way to get it
back?

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Mike]

But why delete it?  Alot of folks learned ofbiz on flatgrey, and their
employees are used to it.  At least keep it around as flatgrey_old.

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Adrian Crum  wrote:
> That theme was starting to look old, so the developer community decided to
> update it.
>
> If you prefer the old version of the theme, you are welcome to replace the
> new one with it.
>
> -Adrian
>
> On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:
>>
>> I just loaded trunk and discovered that the normal flatgrey theme has
>> been completely redefined.  What happened?  I thought it was actually
>> the best theme that was very well organized.  Is there a way to get it
>> back?
>>
>

Re: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Adrian Crum]

That theme was starting to look old, so the developer community decided 
to update it.


If you prefer the old version of the theme, you are welcome to replace 
the new one with it.


-Adrian

On 1/20/2011 3:21 PM, Mike wrote:

I just loaded trunk and discovered that the normal flatgrey theme has
been completely redefined.  What happened?  I thought it was actually
the best theme that was very well organized.  Is there a way to get it
back?

What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?

[Mike]

I just loaded trunk and discovered that the normal flatgrey theme has
been completely redefined.  What happened?  I thought it was actually
the best theme that was very well organized.  Is there a way to get it
back?

OFBIZ Developers seeked for a project in the Finance area

[Carsten Schinzer]

All,


I have spoken with a potential customer today who is interested to develop a
system that creates transparency for a closed financial fund,
internet-based.
Discussing the requirements high level I found this could be achieved using
a customized OFBiz Party and Accounting module along with some scheduled
tasks and a data source integration as well as a handful (or two) BI reports
probably pretty. I expect some extended UI development for the
customer-facing accounting screens as well, so good FTL skills are a
prerequisite.

Further, OFBiz would allow some content publishing on the final site as
well.

As I will not have sufficient time left (and knowledge) to develop myself,
but probably could assist with project management and the later
operation/hosting of the tool, I am looking for developer skills with deep
experience in the OFBiz Accounting module and FTL programming using the
OFBiz framework. I am currently pulling the scope matrix together in order
to fix down some requirements for this platform.

Aside the technical ones, IMHO important skills are:

   - good written and spoken German language skills (ability to follow
   requirements conversations with Business side in German)
   - standalone working mode (as I said, I cannot assist too much of it as I
   have other projects running)

Having said that, the ideal candidate(s) would be based in or around Munich
or at least decide to spend the critical project phases (final Tech Design
and final Implementation) on site in Munich.

At the current stage, I am only asked to provide a high-level view whether
such a project could be achieved by April-May 2011 timeframe.

Interested? Please contact me at my personal mail address and let me know
how you qualify.
Thanks a lot and apologies for spamming everyone here.

Regards


Carsten

Re: Complaint Management Process

[BJ Freeman]

each request and reqestitemm hav a unique ID that can be used for 
ticketing. Also the same for responses.




=
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation  

Specialtymarket.com  
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man


Balasubramaniam Mohan sent the following on 1/19/2011 10:09 PM:

Thank you for the reply. Yes, i went through the customer request option and
tried it out as well. The foundation is there and we could build on the
same.

One more query, is there a ticketing system within ofbiz? Something similar
to the one under otrs.org

If yes, could you direct me to the appropriate url/resource?
Regards


On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:28 AM, David E Jones  wrote:



The CustRequest and related entities are designed for this. No reason to
adapt something almost entirely unrelated.

-David


On Jan 18, 2011, at 6:16 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:


There is a return order process that could maybe be adapted

Jacques

From: "Balasubramaniam Mohan"

Hi,
New Year Greetings to everyone in the OfBiz Group.
Does the Data Model support a complaint management system? Is it

possible to

simulate one?
Have anyone tried?
Appreciate your reply.
Regards

Re: Cart Item Problem

[BJ Freeman]

as said many times there is not object mapping into database.
learn how delegator's work.
the beauty of ofbiz frame work is once you define a new field in a 
entity it is available through the delegator, in any code. No need to map.




=
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation  

Specialtymarket.com  
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man

Shereen sent the following on 1/20/2011 6:19 AM:



Hi All
I'm having a problem related to how the objects are related to the database
tables so that the object can be saved
This was very easy using minlang where you can specify what entity are you
using and do the CRUDs easily
but what about the java objects how they are mapped to the database tables

I cam Across this problem while tring to do the following
I want to add two field in the OrderItem table those fields are called
fromDate and toDate
I've added them to the database table through the entitymodel.xml very
easily
Actually those two fields come from the quote like startReservation date for
example
so I went to the service loadCartFromQuote
and added them into the cartItem Object
I don't know how to map this to the orderItem table
I mean now the cartItem contains 2 dates and the OrderItem has 2 dates how
the mapping is done?
where the method that will save the cart item to order item and put it in
the database?
I've searched for a while and I found that ofbiz doesn't use ORM then how it
works?

I'd be grateful for a reply

Cart Item Problem

[Shereen]

Hi All
I'm having a problem related to how the objects are related to the database
tables so that the object can be saved
This was very easy using minlang where you can specify what entity are you
using and do the CRUDs easily
but what about the java objects how they are mapped to the database tables

I cam Across this problem while tring to do the following
I want to add two field in the OrderItem table those fields are called
fromDate and toDate
I've added them to the database table through the entitymodel.xml very
easily
Actually those two fields come from the quote like startReservation date for
example
so I went to the service loadCartFromQuote
and added them into the cartItem Object
I don't know how to map this to the orderItem table
I mean now the cartItem contains 2 dates and the OrderItem has 2 dates how
the mapping is done?
where the method that will save the cart item to order item and put it in
the database?
I've searched for a while and I found that ofbiz doesn't use ORM then how it
works?

I'd be grateful for a reply

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Cart-Item-Problem-tp3225516p3225516.html
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Localization

[Carsten Schinzer]

Check the "Translation" section on this document:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/FAQ+-+Tips+-+Tricks+-+Cookbook+-+HowTo

Some more is also here (but this may be too wide scope compared to your
initial request):
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Guide+to+OFBiz-i18n%2C++Internationalisation+of+OFBiz

Regards


Carsten

2011/1/20 Paul Foxworthy 

>
> You'll probably be working in
>
>
> https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/ecommerce/config/EcommerceUiLabels.xml
>
> The various applications within Ofbiz have XML files like this one that
> contain localised strings for various languages.
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul Foxworthy
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Localization-tp3222565p3225476.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>



-- 

Best

Carsten Schinzer

Waisenhausstr. 53a
80637 München
Germany