We could include a metadata interface that external reporting tools to
can use to generate reports.
-Adrian
On 4/3/2012 10:27 AM, Divesh Dutta wrote:
+1 for Adrian.
IT departments use specific tools. And they would like to integrate those tools
with OFBiz. So any reporting tool should go in
My +1 for moving them to Extras. Reason is, if we need to keep it for best
practice guide or for training then no doubt its a extra work. We can give
good documentation with details about how to use /extras/example component to
learn and keep it as best practice guide. Also we can promote this
I second with Scott. I would like to see E-commerce component in Special
Purpose because that is the most commonly used component and its code should be
well managed. Lots of people see E-commerce as reference application made on
top of OFBiz. So having Ecommerce's code managed by Committers is
+1 for Adrian.
IT departments use specific tools. And they would like to integrate those tools
with OFBiz. So any reporting tool should go in Extras and End User should
download them as per their need. We just need good documentation around all
these efforts to help end users.
Thanks
--
Dives
Comments inline:
On Mar 20, 2012, at 5:18 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> I) $OFBIZ_HOME/themes/*: move a few of them to "Attic" and a few of them to
>> "Extras"; keep just one (or two)
>>
>
> Jacques proposed to keep Tomahawk (default) and Flat Grey.
> Olivier proposed to keep just one (Toma
I think BIRT should be moved to Extras. The main reasons being:
- we're still not (IMO) giving enough power to the users themselves to create
reports
- not every company wants to use BIRT and nor should they have to
- the engine is large, the integration is lightweight and last time I looked
the
Which is one of reasons to have mostly unused things (not only BIRT) out of
OFBiz.
BTW from this POV the POS is not a problem, since it's not a webapp, it runs
only at demand...
Jacques
Anne wrote:
Just for the record, we disable the birt container. I don't like loading
things I know aren't b
Thank you Anne.
Perfect.
I think options like this can be made visible through some documentation.
At least inside the code through comments.
I know it's there for BIRT.
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Anne wrote:
> Just for the record, we disable the birt container. I don't like loading
> thi
Just for the record, we disable the birt container. I don't like loading
things I know aren't being used.
Cheers,
Anne.
On 23 March 2012 22:33, Mansour Al Akeel wrote:
> in the config for base:
>
> base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml:
> base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml: class="org.ofbiz.bi
Le 21/03/2012 21:56, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
From: "Olivier Heintz"
Le 21/03/2012 19:02, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
From: "Olivier Heintz"
Le 20/03/2012 15:58, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
From: "Jacopo Cappellato"
A) move framework/guiapp out of the framework; after all these
years no code
@ofbiz.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 1:36 AM
Subject: Re: Lose Weight Program for OFBiz - what should go to specialpurpose
Thank you Jacques. XUL is the mozilla UI thing.
I didn't use any of the framework mentioned her :)
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Jacques Le Roux
wrote:
&
Weight Program for OFBiz - what should go to specialpurpose
If we can agree on exactly what specialpurpose will be for in future, we
might find it easy to decide what to move.
My original thought was that specialpurpose is for the "extras" that most
people won't want. But in future Apa
in the config for base:
base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml:
base/config/ofbiz-containers.xml:
This is what loads Birt. Not sure if there's something else needed to load it.
Can this be temporary used until OSGI is introduced. OSGI makes it
easy to load and unload any component. So (if done
+1 to Mansour's comments.
I don't use Birt. I use JasperReports (GPL/LGPL). With JasperReports and
Groovy I currently
>> 2. can use ofbiz fieldnames and entity names. (not databasenames)
>> 3. can use OFBiz views.
>> 4. can fully integrate in the ERP application.
>> 5. has many inbuilt output
I don't know why birt is integrated with Ofbiz. A reporting tools, is
an add-on to any database driven system, and not essential for the
over all functionality. Yes all of us need reports, and most of the
time we use a reporting engine, but why can't it be separated from the
code base, and used as
On Mar 22, 2012, at 12:43 PM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
> Le 22/03/2012 02:38, Hans Bakker a écrit :
>> Jacopo,
>>
>> you are making here a very negative review of the Birt integrationas
>> any component sure there is room for improvement however
>>
>> Some positives you did not even no
Le 22/03/2012 02:38, Hans Bakker a écrit :
Jacopo,
you are making here a very negative review of the Birt integrationas
any component sure there is room for improvement however
Some positives you did not even notice?
1. can use minilanguage for the retrieval
2. can use ofbiz fieldnames
sure...but then i do not understand your comment...where do i indicate
there is a dependency from the framework on an application? Warehouse
entities are stored in the application?
On 03/22/2012 06:14 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
I mean the framework should know nothing about applications
6. I
I mean the framework should know nothing about applications
6. Incorporates the warehouse entities.
Jacques
From: "Hans Bakker"
dependencies from applications to Birt in the framework?
sure because Birt is part of the framework.
warehouse entities and reports on them belong to the app
dependencies from applications to Birt in the framework?
sure because Birt is part of the framework.
warehouse entities and reports on them belong to the applications, not
to the birt application.
Regards,
Hans
On 03/22/2012 05:11 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From your remarks it seems then
From your remarks it seems then that it introduces dependencies from applications.
This is a part of what we are trying to avoid
Jacques
Hans Bakker wrote:
Jacopo,
you are making here a very negative review of the Birt integrationas
any component sure there is room for improvement however
+1
Thanks Anne, easier when neat :o)
Jacques
Anne wrote:
Keep in framework +1
Remove from upcoming release +1
Part of core eventually +1
I think it is (should be) central to content handling, and OFBiz core needs
to handle content. Therefore it should be in core.
Cheers,
Anne.
On 22 March 2
enthusiasm is the word :) .
The Lose Weight Program is a great lead for future, I understand that
some people (and some customer) are afraid by this change.
So we would tend to rise over the benefits of an organization whereby we
have been working on for some years with Apache OFBiz and justify
> I don't think JCR should be handled by a plugin. It should be part of core
> framework.
> And, while at it, I don't think it should replace all Content component
> (notably all its data model, and more anyway).
> It's just a better way to handle content repositories (JCR = Java Content
> Reposito
Le 22/03/2012 04:47, Hans Bakker a écrit :
Hi Anne,
Birt has several advantages in the current integration and we use it
often on the warehouse entities. These entities are mostly not in the
BI component but in the application components.
Jasper reports and all others do not use the ofbiz fr
On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:20 PM, Olivier Heintz wrote:
> not, maybe a directory a the same level as ofbiz in the svn repository, and
> plug-in manager will be able to download it to hot-deploy (or specialpurpose)
> and maybe update some file which is needed (ex: add some target in ofbiz
> build.xml
Hi Anne,
Birt has several advantages in the current integration and we use it
often on the warehouse entities. These entities are mostly not in the BI
component but in the application components.
Jasper reports and all others do not use the ofbiz framework but work on
the JDBC driver directl
I thought Birt was a report generation/layout tool, like JasperReports and
many others. I don't understand why it would have anything to do with
datawarehousing.
I agree with Hans that datawarehousing is important. But I think that
should be part of BI, or other (possibly framework) functionality
Just wanted to mention an idea I had: add a new group "Examples" alongside
applications and specialpurpose and hot-deploy (maybe replacing
specialpurpose?).
It should be easy to enable/disable the entire group in one go. So new
developers have it easily available, it is easy to enable for demos, a
If we can agree on exactly what specialpurpose will be for in future, we
might find it easy to decide what to move.
My original thought was that specialpurpose is for the "extras" that most
people won't want. But in future Apache Extras will be doing that. So
should we remove specialpurpose totall
Jacopo,
you are making here a very negative review of the Birt integrationas
any component sure there is room for improvement however
Some positives you did not even notice?
1. can use minilanguage for the retrieval
2. can use ofbiz fieldnames and entity names. (not databasenames)
3.
Keep in framework +1
Remove from upcoming release +1
Part of core eventually +1
I think it is (should be) central to content handling, and OFBiz core needs
to handle content. Therefore it should be in core.
Cheers,
Anne.
On 22 March 2012 05:04, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> From: "Olivier Heintz"
>
+1 for Birt to extras.
Most of the useful reports OOTB are currently fo.
+1 to JasperReports in extras. I'm happy to volunteer for that one.
Cheers,
Anne.
On 22 March 2012 04:59, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> From: "Olivier Heintz"
>
> Le 20/03/2012 15:31,
> adrian.crum@sandglass-**software.coma
From: "Olivier Heintz"
Le 21/03/2012 19:02, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
From: "Olivier Heintz"
Le 20/03/2012 15:58, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
From: "Jacopo Cappellato"
A) move framework/guiapp out of the framework; after all these years no code
made advantage of it being part of the framewo
Thank you Jacques. XUL is the mozilla UI thing.
I didn't use any of the framework mentioned her :)
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Jacques Le Roux
wrote:
> From: "Mansour Al Akeel"
>>
>> Anil,
>>
>> I did not mean that putting a component under "specialpurposes" will
>> make it used more by de
Le 21/03/2012 19:02, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
From: "Olivier Heintz"
Le 20/03/2012 15:58, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
From: "Jacopo Cappellato"
A) move framework/guiapp out of the framework; after all these
years no code made advantage of it being part of the framework
and it is only used by
From: "Mansour Al Akeel"
Anil,
I did not mean that putting a component under "specialpurposes" will
make it used more by developers.
I meant because it will be used more than other component, let's not move it.
From Jacopo's first email about the Lose Weight :
Legenda for what I propose for eac
Hi Anil,
From: "Anil Patel"
Jacques,
I don't use pos, but I think it's good idea to keep it where it's. I
think it's more likely, it will be used more than what goes in Extra.
It fits "specialpurpose".
Why do you think a component will be used more if its in specialpurpose
section, instead
From: "Olivier Heintz"
Le 20/03/2012 15:58, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
From: "Jacopo Cappellato"
A) move framework/guiapp out of the framework; after all these years no code
made advantage of it being part of the framework
and it is only used by the specialpurpose/pos component (which was the
From: "Olivier Heintz"
Le 21/03/2012 11:45, Pierre Smits a écrit :
Re 1: keep in framework +1
Re 2: remove from upcoming release 12.04 +1, remove from all upcoming
future releases until 3 is finished
plugin could really be the solution, because most of contribution coming from
customer projec
From: "Olivier Heintz"
Le 20/03/2012 15:31, adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com a écrit :
I like the idea of keeping reporting tools separate from OFBiz. In my experience, IT departments are already using a reporting
tool for other applications and they would prefer to integrate that tool with O
Le 21/03/2012 15:03, Hans Bakker a écrit :
Jacques,
sure at the time is was up-to-date and this was a proposal how we can
use ofbiz for the website, however because of the strict apache rules
it was not used...but can still be a template for any local ofbiz
website.
It remains weak: be
Le 20/03/2012 23:44, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
From: "Mansour Al Akeel"
Everyone has different preference about how would the basic component
skeleton looks like (ie, with ajax, without, exta functionality
).
Even if a basic example included with ofbiz distribution, in the
future it will g
discussion on "OFBiz Plugin Management, status and propositions" should
be on the corresponding thread
Le 20/03/2012 16:59, Mansour Al Akeel a écrit :
Ant+Ivy would fit easier with the structure of ofbiz components.
If we want to move to maven, then a modification to
org/ofbiz/base/location/Fl
Le 21/03/2012 17:40, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
On Mar 21, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Olivier Heintz wrote:
+1 for ProjectMgr as a Apache-OFBiz plug-in, not out of Apache-OFBiz
ps: most of our(the company I'm working for) future contribution will be
complete Projectmgr migration to portlet ;-)
Just
Le 21/03/2012 16:16, Anil Patel a écrit :
Jacques,
I don't use pos, but I think it's good idea to keep it where it's. I
think it's more likely, it will be used more than what goes in Extra.
It fits "specialpurpose".
Why do you think a component will be used more if its in specialpurpose
sectio
As a next step, after all these threads about the slim down will settle down,
we should probably, as a community, start to prepare the plan of action, aka
roadmap (we could use Jira for it): add there all the actionable tasks coming
out of this discussions; then, in these mailing lists we should
On Mar 21, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Olivier Heintz wrote:
> +1 for ProjectMgr as a Apache-OFBiz plug-in, not out of Apache-OFBiz
>
> ps: most of our(the company I'm working for) future contribution will be
> complete Projectmgr migration to portlet ;-)
Just to avoid any confusion:
* with this +1 you a
Hi Olivier,
I would love to exchange thoughts regarding migration to portlets.
Regards,
Pierre
Sent from my iPhone
On 21 mrt. 2012, at 17:26, Olivier Heintz wrote:
> Le 21/03/2012 11:50, Pierre Smits a écrit :
>> A) removal of framework/guiapp out of framework: +1
>>
>> B) move specialpurp
Le 21/03/2012 11:50, Pierre Smits a écrit :
A) removal of framework/guiapp out of framework: +1
B) move specialpurpose/pos to 'Extras' +1
I am not in favour of moving ProjectMgr out of specialpurpose to 'Extras' as
the majority of my customers use this. However, if it goes to 'Extras' I would
Le 20/03/2012 15:58, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
From: "Jacopo Cappellato"
A) move framework/guiapp out of the framework; after all these years
no code made advantage of it being part of the framework and it is
only used by the specialpurpose/pos component (which was the
component for which it
+1 birt to extra
and there will also a jasperReport in extras
Le 20/03/2012 15:34, Mansour Al Akeel a écrit :
+1 birt to Extra.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:31 AM, wrote:
I like the idea of keeping reporting tools separate from OFBiz. In my
experience, IT departments are already using a report
Le 20/03/2012 15:31, adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com a écrit :
I like the idea of keeping reporting tools separate from OFBiz. In my
experience, IT departments are already using a reporting tool for
other applications and they would prefer to integrate that tool with
OFBiz, instead of learni
Le 20/03/2012 10:15, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
Thanks to all of you for the great discussion and feedback: I really appreciate
all the time and great ideas you have shared.
There seems to be a general agreement (with exceptions) about the following
points:
* the size of OFBiz should be reduc
Le 21/03/2012 11:45, Pierre Smits a écrit :
Re 1: keep in framework +1
Re 2: remove from upcoming release 12.04 +1, remove from all upcoming
future releases until 3 is finished
plugin could really be the solution, because most of contribution coming
from customer project, and it's easier for a p
Anil,
I did not mean that putting a component under "specialpurposes" will
make it used more by developers.
I meant because it will be used more than other component, let's not move it.
>From Jacopo's first email about the Lose Weight :
Legenda for what I propose for each piece of code:
* Attic: r
>
> Jacques,
> I don't use pos, but I think it's good idea to keep it where it's. I
> think it's more likely, it will be used more than what goes in Extra.
> It fits "specialpurpose".
>
Why do you think a component will be used more if its in specialpurpose
section, instead of Extras.
Persona
Anil,
I agree with you.
Jacques,
I don't use pos, but I think it's good idea to keep it where it's. I
think it's more likely, it will be used more than what goes in Extra.
It fits "specialpurpose".
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Anil Patel wrote:
> People are really worried on the idea of m
People are really worried on the idea of moving certain components from Ofbiz
trunk to Ofbiz Extras. Why is it so?
Moving a component from Ofbiz trunk to Ofbiz Extras does not mean that the
component is not good and so we are throwing it out. Instead idea is to allow
components to grow by givi
They are more generic sure, I wonder for the pos...
Jacques
From: "Mansour Al Akeel"
Jacques,
Yes. You are right. I meant projectmgr. :)
I believe assetmaint and projectmgr are used more than others and good
to keep them where they are.
Thank you.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Jacques
Jacques,
Yes. You are right. I meant projectmgr. :)
I believe assetmaint and projectmgr are used more than others and good
to keep them where they are.
Thank you.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Jacques Le Roux
wrote:
> partymgr is in application will not move, you meant ProjectMgr right?
Hans,
The OFBiz project can hardly be regarded as an OFBiz Provider. Look at the
list of Providers on the site. Then look at the source of their websites
and have a feel for how many (besides your company) use OFBiz as a WCM.
There are several solutions in the field providing for website
function
And there are parts in framework
Jacques
From: "Hans Bakker"
The idea behind this that documents in wiki are not according the
version..(only the latest)
This directory has it for the related version AND can be in different
languages and formats: html, pdf
do judge before you understand..
Jacques,
sure at the time is was up-to-date and this was a proposal how we can
use ofbiz for the website, however because of the strict apache rules it
was not used...but can still be a template for any local ofbiz website.
It remains weak: being an 'ofbiz' provider but not using it your
partymgr is in application will not move, you meant ProjectMgr right?
Jacques
From: "Mansour Al Akeel"
I would recommend keeping partymgr and assetmaint.
I am not sure if accounting depends on assetmain.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
+ 1 on move of majority of apps
From: "Mansour Al Akeel"
Jacques,
inline:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Jacques Le Roux
wrote:
Hi Mansour,
From: "Mansour Al Akeel"
Jacques,
We use RTL.
May be you are right about the the ease of use to find an item, but
the user who has permission to all these functionality is an
Hans,
The problem is that it's completly outdated and nobody is able/want to maintain
it
Just compare with http://ofbiz.apache.org/ which follows ASF rules with for
instance a TM on Logo, etc.
Jacques
From: "Hans Bakker"
then this could be in contrast with the ASF infrastructure offer
I would recommend keeping partymgr and assetmaint.
I am not sure if accounting depends on assetmain.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> + 1 on move of majority of apps in specialpurpose to 'Extras', excluding
> projectmgr as it displays how to use OFBiz in a different industr
Jacques,
inline:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Jacques Le Roux
wrote:
> Hi Mansour,
>
>
> From: "Mansour Al Akeel"
>>
>> Jacques,
>>
>> We use RTL.
>> May be you are right about the the ease of use to find an item, but
>> the user who has permission to all these functionality is an admin,
>
Infra wouldn't be happy if we host the website in that demo instance; websites
potentially have a lot of visits and that server is not intended for the load;
this is similar to Confluence based pages: we will no more be allowed to use
direct links to them from the website.
Jacopo
On Mar 21, 20
Currently, rptdesign is used in specialpurpose applications like ebaystore
and scrum, but also in core applications (accounting, order and product).
We have to provide reports in our applications, as it would be difficult to
maintain the concept of completeness of functionality without them.
Endus
The idea behind this that documents in wiki are not according the
version..(only the latest)
This directory has it for the related version AND can be in different
languages and formats: html, pdf
do judge before you understand..
Regards,
Hans
On 03/21/2012 06:01 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
+1. This is an example of bloat. Keeping ill-maintained static documents in
OFBiz (the suite) that are also available through the OFBiz website is not
adding value.
Regards,
Pierre
Op 20 maart 2012 12:48 schreef Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> het volgende:
>
> > O) frame
+ 1 on move of majority of apps in specialpurpose to 'Extras', excluding
projectmgr as it displays how to use OFBiz in a different industry than
ecommerce/webshop. Is it not so that OFBiz is versatile. ProjectMgr does
deliver some of that versatility.
Regards,
Pierre
Op 20 maart 2012 12:47 schre
On all: +1
Regards,
Pierre
Op 20 maart 2012 12:48 schreef Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> het volgende:
>
> > C) $OFBIZ_HOME/debian: move to "Attic"
> >
> > D) the seleniumxml code in framework/testtools: move to "Attic"
> >
> > E) specialpurpose/workflow: move to "Attic"
A) removal of framework/guiapp out of framework: +1
B) move specialpurpose/pos to 'Extras' +1
I am not in favour of moving ProjectMgr out of specialpurpose to 'Extras'
as the majority of my customers use this. However, if it goes to 'Extras' I
would like to assist in maintaining it.
Regards,
Pi
then this could be in contrast with the ASF infrastructure offered
to the projects. -
??? try: http://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/ofbiz/
Regards,
Hans
On 03/20/2012 06:48 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
G) specialpurpose/ofbizwebsite: move to "Attic"
Jacques and Olivier proposed to mo
Re 1: keep in framework +1
Re 2: remove from upcoming release 12.04 +1, remove from all upcoming
future releases until 3 is finished
Re 3: draft up requirements for content framework replacement +1
Excellent roadmapping ;-)
Regards,
Pierre
Op 20 maart 2012 11:48 schreef Jacopo Cappellato <
jaco
+1
Op 20 maart 2012 12:48 schreef Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> het volgende:
>
> > G) specialpurpose/ofbizwebsite: move to "Attic"
> >
>
> Jacques and Olivier proposed to move it to Extras instead just in case
> someone will pick up the work and complete it in the future
+1 on removal from core (framework), as it doesn't add any value in a
framework. However, having it available as a separate downloadable
application (to be used from hot-deploy or special purpose) would be
beneficiary for newcomers in the development scene.
Regards,
Pierre
Op 20 maart 2012 12:47
I prefer to keep the Flat Grey and one other.
Op 20 maart 2012 12:48 schreef Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> het volgende:
> > I) $OFBIZ_HOME/themes/*: move a few of them to "Attic" and a few of them
> to "Extras"; keep just one (or two)
> >
>
> Jacques proposed to keep Tom
We will setup a page in the OFBiz website, for sure.
The final decision on the projects that will appear there will be done by the
OFBiz PMC but I guess that initially it will only contain projects in Apache
Extras; there may be exceptions to to this rule, I guess.
Jacopo
On Mar 21, 2012, at 11
Where are we going to show the list of addons for OFBiz? Will this only be
limited to ones in Apache Extra's or for the people who prefer to do their
source hosting on say github join in too?
Thanks
Sam
On 21 Mar 2012, at 16:23, Vikas Mayur wrote:
> Thanks Jacopo for your quick response. It
Thanks Jacopo for your quick response. It clears my doubt.
Regards
Vikas
On Mar 21, 2012, at 1:41 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> Hi Vikas,
>
> I am sharing my ideas about this new process (they are also based on my
> reading of various documents provided by ASF):
>
> On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:58
Hi Vikas,
I am sharing my ideas about this new process (they are also based on my reading
of various documents provided by ASF):
On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Vikas Mayur wrote:
> Hi Jacopo,
>
> I have few questions on the proposed idea for Extras.
>
> -- Since the projects will be hosted as A
Hi Jacopo,
I have few questions on the proposed idea for Extras.
-- Since the projects will be hosted as Apache OFBiz Extras and not officially
under ASF, In future does this means these projects should strictly follow the
ASF license? What if user group and/or the code maintainer of the projec
Hi Mansour,
From: "Mansour Al Akeel"
Jacques,
We use RTL.
May be you are right about the the ease of use to find an item, but
the user who has permission to all these functionality is an admin,
and normally, she is comfortable finding any item quickly. The rest of
the uses don't have that much
From: "Mansour Al Akeel"
Everyone has different preference about how would the basic component
skeleton looks like (ie, with ajax, without, exta functionality
).
Even if a basic example included with ofbiz distribution, in the
future it will grow again with extra unneeded functionality, or
Jacques,
We use RTL.
May be you are right about the the ease of use to find an item, but
the user who has permission to all these functionality is an admin,
and normally, she is comfortable finding any item quickly. The rest of
the uses don't have that much items and menus shown.
I know, other the
From: "Scott Gray"
On 21/03/2012, at 9:24 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
Le 20/03/2012 12:48, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
G) specialpurpose/ofbizwebsite: move to "Attic"
Jacques and Olivier proposed to move it to Extras instead just in case someone
will pick up the work and complete it i
I see that most people prefer Flat Grey.
Let me explain why I prefer Tomahawk.
Did you ever wonder why the paper we write on has more than often a greater
height than width, why newspaper have many columns, etc.
Here is an answer
http://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/3553/why-do-new
Everyone has different preference about how would the basic component
skeleton looks like (ie, with ajax, without, exta functionality
).
Even if a basic example included with ofbiz distribution, in the
future it will grow again with extra unneeded functionality, or it
will be an on going discu
On 21/03/2012, at 9:24 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
> Le 20/03/2012 12:48, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>
>>> G) specialpurpose/ofbizwebsite: move to "Attic"
>>>
>>
>> Jacques and Olivier proposed to move it to Extras instead just in case
>> someone will pick up the work and complete it in th
Le 20/03/2012 12:47, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
Q) framework/example and framework/exampleext: move to specialpurpose
Adrian would like to keep Example in the framework but slim it down a lot to the essential (no form
widgets examples, no Ajax examples, no content examples etc...). Adrian wou
Le 20/03/2012 12:48, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
G) specialpurpose/ofbizwebsite: move to "Attic"
Jacques and Olivier proposed to move it to Extras instead just in case someone
will pick up the work and complete it in the future.
I would like to mention that, if the original goal was "to eat
Le 20/03/2012 13:18, Sascha Rodekamp a écrit :
Hi,
1) keep it in framework
+1
2) but remove it from the upcoming new release branch 12.04
+1 - for now the JCR implementation provide the the developer an API
which helps to create, read, update or delete content in the
repository. We have no
I'm in favor of moving all special purpose apps to Extras (or Attic for some of
the older/unused ones) except for ecommerce. Even then the only reason I'd
like to keep ecommerce is because it is the only special purpose app that is
almost universally useful to OFBiz users and I'd like to keep i
My vote will be to keep two themes in the project. IMO Flatgrey theme is
the best to keep as the default one for the project.
--
Ashish
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
> > I) $OFBIZ_HOME/themes/*: move a few of them to "Attic" and a
Another data point: I've been in several OFBiz shops recently and have
observed that many people end up using Flat Grey. Not sure why this is.
IMHO Tomahawk looks nice, but in the end, the mixture of dark and light
is hard on the eyes. Having to scroll over to expose links makes
navigation mor
I use example component as my reference for best practice guide. Still I think
its better placed in Ofbiz Extras.
Thanks and Regards
Anil Patel
HotWax Media Inc
On Mar 20, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Nicolas Malin wrote:
> Le 20/03/2012 16:38, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>> From: "Nicolas Malin"
>>> L
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
