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):
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
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
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
http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52
Specialtymarket.com
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
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?
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
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 adri...@hlmksw.com wrote:
That theme was starting to look old, so the developer community decided to
update it.
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Technology continues to march forward. Some people find it hard to keep up.
-Adrian
--- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones d...@me.com 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
--- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones d...@me.com 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?
On Jan 20, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
--- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones d...@me.com 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
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
On Jan 20, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
--- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones d...@me.com 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
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
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 d...@me.com wrote:
What the project needs is cutoff points at major revision
releases after which attempts at backward compatibility are
totally
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
--- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones d...@me.com 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
On Jan 20, 2011, at 11:08 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
--- On Thu, 1/20/11, David E Jones d...@me.com 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
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
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
29 matches
Mail list logo
