CC Meeting Full 20070130
-->| vpj-cd (n=vpj-cd@squid-andina.stealthtelecom.net) has joined #adempiere-team
<vpj-cd> I sorry
<vpj-cd> I am here
<vpj-cd> thank Low
<Bahman> Welcome!
<vpj-cd> I am ready
<vpj-cd> Hi everybody
|<-- CarlosRuiz has left freenode (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
<hengsin> hi victor, carlos just inform he will be a bit late
-->| kontro (n=tko@e82-103-220-167.elisa-laajakaista.fi) has joined #adempiere-team
<Bahman> Hi kontro!
<hengsin> going through some the compiere 260b changes, they have make one minor UI changes
<vpj-cd> yes I was read
<hengsin> In the current UI, if you type in an invalid character in numeric field, the calculator will auto popup, that behaviour is remove in 260b, now it only beep
<vpj-cd> they have support to postgresql
<vpj-cd> and inprove your gui
<vpj-cd> but I know not what is yur improves
<hengsin> guys, do your think that is better ?
<vpj-cd> no low I said that I know not what is improves
<vpj-cd> only I know they now support db2 and postgresql
-->| CarlosRuiz (n=Carlos@Dynamic-IP-cr2001187233.cable.net.co) has joined #adempiere-team
<vpj-cd> but I think our bridget is more stable and debug :-)
<CarlosRuiz> Hi
<CarlosRuiz> My connection is very unstable since yesterday
<hengsin> hi carlos
<vpj-cd> Hi Carlos
|<-- CarlosRuiz has left freenode (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer))
<hengsin> victor, how's your postgresql testing going so far ?
<vpj-cd> unit is fine
<vpj-cd> I running main process use postgresql
<vpj-cd> the quotation to cash
<vpj-cd> and requisition to pay
<vpj-cd> and all are working fine
<vpj-cd> but the full test are this week
<vpj-cd> I testing all process to import
<vpj-cd> and now all are working fine
<hengsin> ic, what is your plan for libero ?
<vpj-cd> my plan is finish the migration to this week
<vpj-cd> I have the dmp in oracle
<vpj-cd> I yhink before only in postgresql
<hengsin> you will create a branch for that or publish as 2pack module ?
<vpj-cd> but I think is more complex usa ddlutils and postgresql to generat model to oracle
<vpj-cd> yes
<vpj-cd> I need you suggestion
<vpj-cd> I can create a new brach as libero
<hengsin> would there be modification to core as well ?
<vpj-cd> or to release 3.3.1
<vpj-cd> the change is in AD
<vpj-cd> and I have all my conde in a pakage org.eevolution.*
<hengsin> victor, release 3.3 now will be confusing to end user as we haven't release 3.2 yet
<hengsin> so it can be apply as a 2 pack module to current trunk ?
<vpj-cd> yes I can
<vpj-cd> but I think what is reay
<vpj-cd> we can include in trunk
<vpj-cd> nad distribution stanard
<vpj-cd> the problem is we need release 3.2 this is as stable
<hengsin> victor, if it can be install easyly using 2pack, then it can be created as another project under trunk
<vpj-cd> I think tha libero may be after this 3.2
<vpj-cd> this to reason I think in 3.3
<vpj-cd> but is only a idea
<vpj-cd> yes, this posible
<hengsin> to me, the key is 1. Any changes to core framework 2. Installation
<vpj-cd> but I think we should release 3.2
<vpj-cd> and after set libero
<vpj-cd> but I want your suggestion :-)
<vpj-cd> I have add 30 tables
<vpj-cd> and views
<vpj-cd> 15 windows
<vpj-cd> and 4 forms
<hengsin> If no changes to core framework and 2pack installation is ok then libero can be created as a new project under trunk. So we can package adempiere with or without libero, end user with sufficient technical know how can also install the libero add on them self
<vpj-cd> 5 reports
<Bahman> Sorry but many solutions without Mfg, HR and Payroll are almost useless...My idea is sooner is better.
<vpj-cd> yes the libro have payroll
<vpj-cd> module laso
<vpj-cd> but I sure not if we should include this
<vpj-cd> I can integrate
<vpj-cd> to the ppl can review
-->| CarlosRuiz_ (n=chatzill@Dynamic-IP-cr2001187233.cable.net.co) has joined #adempiere-team
<Bahman> Very good! Postponing its release to 3.2 threatens many ADempiere partners.
<vpj-cd> and your comment
<hengsin> Bahman, one of the direction we want to achieve is to make things more modular, so if possible, we want to release new module as 2pack module
<vpj-cd> I have
<vpj-cd> 2 questio here
<Bahman> I agree! But I believe that choosing the quicker way is somewhat vital to some partners.
<vpj-cd> question here
<hengsin> we are not holding things back, just discussing on release strategy
<Bahman> Right.
<vpj-cd> we should set libero as entity Application
<CarlosRuiz_> Is teo_sarca here?
<teo_sarca> hello, i am here
<vpj-cd> vs Customaice User
<teo_sarca> but i was bussy with some problems, i read the log now....
<teo_sarca> victor, why not creating another entity for libero ?
<vpj-cd> in AD exist
<vpj-cd> cutomiace , application
<vpj-cd> compiere
<CarlosRuiz_> what's the theme?
<vpj-cd> now adempiere
<teo_sarca> but create another one, like 'Adempiere-libero' ?
<vpj-cd> Hi Carlos
<hengsin> carlos, release strategy for libero
<hengsin> and also is 314 ready
<vpj-cd> mm we should use application
<teo_sarca> why ?
<vpj-cd> we can set aplication and manufacturing
<CarlosRuiz_> if libero is going to be released as a package it must be application, if is going to be released as trunk must be Adempiere type
<vpj-cd> but is only one idea
|<-- AFalcone has left freenode ("Chatzilla 0.9.77 [Firefox 2.0.0.1/2006120418]")
<teo_sarca> i see the entity types as tagging something... maybe i am missing something :)
<CarlosRuiz_> is going to be released as package or as official ?
<vpj-cd> ok the we can as Adempiere type entety
<vpj-cd> entity
<hengsin> I propose to start as a 2pack package project in trunk
-->| AFalcone (n=AFalcone@190.49.105.69) has joined #adempiere-team
<AFalcone> Hi all
<teo_sarca> i like the ideea with 2pack ....
<vpj-cd> hi all
<CarlosRuiz_> Hi Alejandro
<teo_sarca> hi afalcone
<Bahman> Hi AFalcone!
<vpj-cd> Hi Alejandro
<CarlosRuiz_> yes, it can be, at first as package, when more tested we can integrate it into trunk
<AFalcone> sorry but I have problems with my w2k installation
<hengsin> yes, that's the idea
<Bahman> Carlos, is it not better to keep it as 2Pack pkg, so customisations based on customer's demands are more efficient?
<Bahman> Since an ERP solution is an expensive one...some customers may desire a cheaper one with less features.
<CarlosRuiz_> it's not the case in Adempiere, we don't have "enterprise" and "light" versions
<vpj-cd> I am think we could a branch
<CarlosRuiz_> the costs in Adempiere are services of implementation
<teo_sarca> i disagree with the ideea of branch...
<CarlosRuiz_> a branch is for development, but how to release it ?
<hengsin> victor, no need to branch if there are no modification to trunk
<teo_sarca> or there are modifications to trunk ?
<hengsin> victor, do u agree to go the 2pack module path ?
<Bahman> Carlos, we don't have multiple versions, but some customers don't want to pay for customisations in Mfg while they don't need it at all.
<vpj-cd> ok
<hengsin> bahman, we can talk about that later
<vpj-cd> then is problem
<Bahman> Sorry, ok.
<vpj-cd> I need add tables, view, form, wind, report etc
<vpj-cd> into seed
<vpj-cd> and need add the soruce in directory
<vpj-cd> source into directory
<vpj-cd> we have 2 option
<vpj-cd> create this in trunk
<vpj-cd> or create a branch
<vpj-cd> to release 3.3.1
<CarlosRuiz_> or create as package
<teo_sarca> victor, have you modified some current classes ?
<vpj-cd> yes 2 or 3 of core
<vpj-cd> MOrder
<vpj-cd> MRequsition
<vpj-cd> I add to MRP one line
<vpj-cd> but also solve this overload the class
<vpj-cd> I have my own class extend from Morder
<teo_sarca> i see
<vpj-cd> and only overload one method
<teo_sarca> looking at the sources: MOrder has some bug fix only
<vpj-cd> Carlos the problem with 2pack
<CarlosRuiz_> but ADempiere won't call another class if is not named MOrder
<hengsin> victor, what java package u use for class that extend MOrder
<vpj-cd> this this no is create te roles acess
<vpj-cd> then whe you import use 2pack
<vpj-cd> I have add the permitions
<CarlosRuiz_> I think that can be easily fixed in 2pack
<vpj-cd> org.compiere.model
<teo_sarca> Carlos, is org.eevolution.model.MOrder
<teo_sarca> not ?
<vpj-cd> I modify the finder to PO
<hengsin> teo, check the current finder for PO, package name is hard coded
<vpj-cd> in my code I find first my class
<vpj-cd> the use my model and this extend the original of compiere
<hengsin> actually, that's the other topic I want to discuss today
<vpj-cd> I maked this in pass because JJ
<vpj-cd> do not let change the core :-)
<hengsin> teo, how do u achieve that in your customization ?
<vpj-cd> yes my class is org.eevolution.model.MOrder
<vpj-cd> I have my directory con my model
<vpj-cd> con = with
<teo_sarca> hengsin, i am looking at the libero from contributions, i am looking at the wrong place ?
<vpj-cd> yes this place rigth
<vpj-cd> have some question to discution
<teo_sarca> hengsin, about model loading, i tryed a lot of solutions... i don't know which one is right....
<vpj-cd> 1.-what is the politic to named your pakage
<vpj-cd> I saw that you should use the name domian the enterprise that cerate software
<vpj-cd> but I am agree in change
<vpj-cd> to adempiere
<vpj-cd> 2.-How I add libero into AD
<hengsin> carlos, MTable.getClass(tableName), the package is hardcoded in source, any idea ?
<vpj-cd> use Adempiere entity or Aplication
<vpj-cd> 2.-How I add my code we use the branch or into trunk
<vpj-cd> 2.- = 3.-
<CarlosRuiz_> yes, many ideas, but all of them with same problem
<vpj-cd> I solve this problem overload the class
<CarlosRuiz_> how are we going to integrate two packages if they modify or extend the same class?
<vpj-cd> ok I explaint
<CarlosRuiz_> but if you overload the class you need to change the finder of PO
<hengsin> maybe we can add a package field to ad_table ?
<vpj-cd> one momnet I find the class
<vpj-cd> yes Carlos I only add 2 lines
<vpj-cd> now I show
<CarlosRuiz_> it's not the size of the change, is the impact
<teo_sarca> hengsin, i have an ideea (i didn't experimented yet)
<teo_sarca> add the package name on the entitytype
<teo_sarca> ....
<teo_sarca> but this depends on how you see the entity types....
<vpj-cd> then what may be problem?
<CarlosRuiz_> if everyone integrating add 2 lines to find their own package name we're going to be in trouble very soon
|<-- AFalcone has left freenode (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
<CarlosRuiz_> I have an idea, but don't satisfy me completely
<CarlosRuiz_> it's defining the package model by client
<CarlosRuiz_> in table AD_Client
<vpj-cd> yes but have 2 option
<vpj-cd> set in standar code
<vpj-cd> or under class
<teo_sarca> what you think about what i have above ?
<vpj-cd> this solve is good to another problem
<CarlosRuiz_> but don't satisfy me completely because of the question I did: how are we going to integrate two packages that change the same class ?
<CarlosRuiz_> or extend the same class
<vpj-cd> ie we can user this form to integrate
<vpj-cd> triggers
<vpj-cd> and have control of completit, preparateit
<vpj-cd> before save
<vpj-cd> after save
<vpj-cd> this change may be only your customer
<teo_sarca> i supose that if you extend a class (like MOrder) you will use that locally (in your package)
<teo_sarca> for other types, as victor said, you can use model validators
<CarlosRuiz_> same question: how are we going to integrate two packages that change or extend the same class ?
<teo_sarca> why do you want to change that class ?
<hengsin> victor, in your case, you will also modify the order window ?
-->| AFalcone (n=chatzill@190.49.105.69) has joined #adempiere-team
<hengsin> carlos, sounds like need to be managed at the window, report and process level
<vpj-cd> Carlos you can see this link
<vpj-cd> http://adempiere.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/adempiere/contributions/253b/kompierelibero/kompiere/src/org/eevolution/model/MOrder.java?revision=222&view=markup
<vpj-cd> I overload the methows I wnat to change
<vpj-cd> execute my logic and after make super.completeIt()
<CarlosRuiz_> maybe that can be done in ModelValidator
<CarlosRuiz_> hengsin, but my question is how are we going to integrate two packages that changes or extends MOrder at the same time with different modifications
<CarlosRuiz_> I'm anticipating a little, this is not the case at this moment, but it will be with future integrations
<hengsin> yes, if there are modifying the same window, most likely there will be some conflict
<vpj-cd> I detect use another pakage
<vpj-cd> in this case org.eevolution.model
<hengsin> if is for 2 different window then we can managed that at the window level
<CarlosRuiz_> Victor, do you have customer code there?
<vpj-cd> but we can solve is org.adempiere.model
<hengsin> so it depends on what the modification is for and where it is being use.
<vpj-cd> this another example
<vpj-cd> http://adempiere.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/adempiere/contributions/253b/kompierelibero/kompiere/src/org/eevolution/model/MOrderLine.java?revision=222&view=markup
<CarlosRuiz_> I mean the comment "this code was implemented for Propalma", that code must be in ModelValidator, save is of full interest in product
<vpj-cd> yes Carlos I have one customation in the code a customer
<teo_sarca> victor, MOrderLine can be integrated with ModelValidator
<vpj-cd> I used the same functionality
<vpj-cd> but compleit in Morder to libero do not is use
<vpj-cd> yes I this I can change to ModelValidator
<vpj-cd> the question waht is our best practice :-)
<teo_sarca> i think that integrating with model validators is fine
<vpj-cd> this ie
<vpj-cd> http://adempiere.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/adempiere/contributions/253b/kompierelibero/kompiere/src/org/eevolution/model/MRequisition.java?view=markup
<CarlosRuiz_> nope
<vpj-cd> http://adempiere.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/adempiere/contributions/253b/kompierelibero/kompiere/src/org/eevolution/model/MRequisitionLine.java?view=markup
<CarlosRuiz_> normally every implementation has its own ModelValidator (one or several)
<vpj-cd> this another
<vpj-cd> samble
<vpj-cd> http://adempiere.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/adempiere/contributions/253b/kompierelibero/kompiere/src/org/eevolution/model/MInOut.java?view=markup
<CarlosRuiz_> so a package must not overwrite the ModelValidator
<CarlosRuiz_> I'm thinking maybe that we can have an "extension" model validator independent from Client model validator
<vpj-cd> ok then the socution is ModelValidator
<teo_sarca> carlos says no ....
<CarlosRuiz_> and we could have several "extensions" signed at the same time
<CarlosRuiz_> in a table
<vpj-cd> socution = solution
<CarlosRuiz_> extension -> MPC -> package -> org.eevolution.model.MPCModelValidator
<vpj-cd> yes
<teo_sarca> ok, but we need some code injection support...
<vpj-cd> the aventage of my model
<teo_sarca> something like before/after model's method
<vpj-cd> is you can control all code extend from original
-->| Bahman- (i=savirc@85.133.161.57) has joined #adempiere-team
<vpj-cd> code
<vpj-cd> have control of all class
<CarlosRuiz_> Victor, but you can't have two extensions
<Bahman-> Sorry! My connection has got reset.
<vpj-cd> but I know if this I can use in ModelValidator
<CarlosRuiz_> or you can, but it will be a nightmare to manage it
<vpj-cd> we need some from to code injection
<vpj-cd> without need the compli the code
|<-- Bahman has left freenode (Connection timed out)
<teo_sarca> carlos, what about some model validators defined at system level ?
<vpj-cd> I think in set a method
<teo_sarca> or a table with model validators
<teo_sarca> ?
<vpj-cd> into aftersave, beforesave, etc
<Bahman-> Sorry but I have to leave. Good bye :-)
<vpj-cd> and set into the AD new windows with some type of script
<--| Bahman- has left #adempiere-team ("bye!")
<vpj-cd> we now have a problem
<vpj-cd> this is very reccurent
<vpj-cd> recurrent
-->| vclark (n=vclark@c-24-9-155-147.hsd1.co.comcast.net) has joined #adempiere-team
<vpj-cd> you need modify some busness rule
<vpj-cd> or create a new callout
<vpj-cd> or set a new validation
<vpj-cd> but now the problem is you need make this hard code
<vpj-cd> and complie
<vpj-cd> this take very time
<vpj-cd> and you have showdown the server and user
<vpj-cd> to add new functionality
<vpj-cd> we need some solution to set dynamic rules
<vpj-cd> some idea?
<hengsin> victor, thats fine for me. scripting is nice to have and for me of low priority now
<vpj-cd> ok
<vpj-cd> you can see here that is my change to support over load class
<vpj-cd> http://adempiere.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/adempiere/contributions/253b/kompierelibero/dbPort/src/org/compiere/model/M_Table.java?view=markup
<vpj-cd> you can use to find vpj-c
<vpj-cd> vpj-cd
<CarlosRuiz_> teo -> "carlos, what about some model validators defined at system level ?"
<vpj-cd> or e-evolution
<CarlosRuiz_> agree, I think that can be a solution: "I'm thinking maybe that we can have an "extension" model validator independent from Client model validator"
<teo_sarca> would be nice
<CarlosRuiz_> "and we could have several "extensions" signed at the same time in the same table"
<teo_sarca> yes
<CarlosRuiz_> i.e. -> "extension -> MPC -> package -> org.eevolution.model.MPCModelValidator"
<hengsin> carlos, I think we need to have a module/plugin/extension kind of concept to manage the modelvalidator and also the discovery of PO class
<teo_sarca> yes
<CarlosRuiz_> yes
<teo_sarca> and carlos, why not using a diferent entity type name for each customization ?
<hengsin> PO class is typically use in window and for table, my take is we can also add a javaPackage field to either ad_table or ad_window/ad_tab for that
<CarlosRuiz_> but hengsin, the solution is not via discovery of PO class, because you will want to have several modifications at the same time
<vpj-cd> Teo I think we need add new field or 2
<CarlosRuiz_> what if C_Order table is extended by eevolution, but in other package is extended by other company?
<vpj-cd> the Company
<vpj-cd> and PakageName
<hengsin> ic, so you are talking about let the PO class unmodified but use ModelValidator or other extension means to add functionality
<vpj-cd> the you can define entity Type As Application, Company e-Evolution, Pakename or Program Libero
<CarlosRuiz_> yes, something like ModelValidator, and allow several ModelValidator, one for Client, and one for each package installed
<vpj-cd> we can user version to have a control in updates
<vpj-cd> Low and Carlos
<vpj-cd> the most import is you canhave control
<vpj-cd> when WF is use
<vpj-cd> used
<vpj-cd> WF engine use the methos as completeIt, preparateIt
<vpj-cd> CloseIt
<vpj-cd> then you can set some logical before and after that you excute standard code
<vpj-cd> this we have use ModelValidator?
<CarlosRuiz_> exactly
<teo_sarca> victor, as i see, you also need some before-beforeSave, after-beforeSave ....
<CarlosRuiz_> and we're already adding ModelValidator for void, reverse, reactivate, etc
<hengsin> yes, agree that should be more manageable than using classic inheritance extension
-->| fer_luck (n=fernando@200.181.26.213) has joined #adempiere-team
<--| fer_luck has left #adempiere-team ("Leaving")
<teo_sarca> so, which are the conclusions, should we write some document/proposal in wiki about extending adempiere ?
<vpj-cd> yes I think is rigth
<vpj-cd> and include of script validation
<hengsin> teo, can u start that ? conclusions now the way forward is to use the modalvalidator extension modal rather then always extend the M* class
<vpj-cd> into before-beforeSave, after-beforeSave ....
<teo_sarca> ok, i will draw the tag line...
<vpj-cd> we should could set a callout use script bean or some similar
<vpj-cd> I also add
<vpj-cd> this pach to whne you need compy from PO standar
<vpj-cd> 965 /**
<vpj-cd> 966 * Copy old values of From to new values of To.
<vpj-cd> 967 * Does not copy Keys and AD_Client_ID/AD_Org_ID
<vpj-cd> 968 * @param from old, existing & unchanged PO
<vpj-cd> 969 * @param to new, not saved PO
<vpj-cd> 970 */
<vpj-cd> 971 protected static void copyValues (PO from, PO to)
<vpj-cd> 972 {
<vpj-cd> 973 s_log.fine("From ID=" + from.get_ID() + " - To ID=" + to.get_ID());
<vpj-cd> 974 //begin e-evolution vpj-cd 16 FEB 2006 fix bug overload object i.e. (org.eevolution.model.* to org.compiere.model.*)
<vpj-cd> 975 //System.out.println("from.getClass().getSuperclass().getName():" + from.getClass().getSuperclass().getName() +"to.getClass().getName():"+ to.getClass().getName());
<vpj-cd> 976 //if (from.getClass() != to.getClass())
<vpj-cd> 977 String superclass = from.getClass().getSuperclass().getName();
<vpj-cd> 978 String childclass = to.getClass().getName();
<vpj-cd> 979 System.out.println("childclass.compareTo(superclass)"+ childclass.compareTo(superclass));
<vpj-cd> 980 if (from.getClass() != to.getClass())
<vpj-cd> 981 if (childclass.compareTo(superclass) != 0)
<vpj-cd> 982 //end e-evolution vpj-cd 16 FEB 2006
<vpj-cd> you can see here
<vpj-cd> http://adempiere.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/adempiere/contributions/253b/kompierelibero/dbPort/src/org/compiere/model/PO.java?view=markup
<vpj-cd> and about the integration of libero
<hengsin> victor, when u plan to release libero ?
<vpj-cd> what is way one brach or dir into trunk
<vpj-cd> I think this may be after we release 3.2
<vpj-cd> whoe we have the road map
<vpj-cd> but I need only 2 week to finish the integration
<hengsin> victor, if u can't wait then I think it is best to start a libero branch
<CarlosRuiz_> the theme is closed, or my connection stalled ?
<hengsin> carlos, the extension part is concluded
<vpj-cd> ok I am open
<vpj-cd> I only need we take desition
<vpj-cd> the branch
<hengsin> now onto the libero part, my suggestion is if victor is in the hurry to finish this then it is best to create a libero branch first
<vpj-cd> I think the branch is more fast
<vpj-cd> yes
<vpj-cd> when this is ready
<vpj-cd> only we can merge with the trunk
<hengsin> carlos, what do u think ?
<vpj-cd> other oprion is create manufacturin directory into trunk
<vpj-cd> and this no include in complie standar
<vpj-cd> you need include manuality
<vpj-cd> to use libero
<vpj-cd> I can set the seed into this directory
-->| CarlosRuiz__ (n=chatzill@Dynamic-IP-cr2001187233.cable.net.co) has joined #adempiere-team
=-= CarlosRuiz__ is now known as CarlosRuiz
<vpj-cd> <hengsin> now onto the libero part, my suggestion is if victor is in the hurry to finish this then it is best to create a libero branch first
<vpj-cd> <vpj-cd> I think the branch is more fast
<vpj-cd> <vpj-cd> yes
<vpj-cd> <vpj-cd> when this is ready
<vpj-cd> <vpj-cd> only we can merge with the trunk
<vpj-cd> <hengsin> carlos, what do u think ?
<vpj-cd> <vpj-cd> other oprion is create manufacturin directory into trunk
<vpj-cd> <vpj-cd> and this no include in complie standar
<vpj-cd> <vpj-cd> you need include manuality
<vpj-cd> <vpj-cd> to use libero
<vpj-cd> <vpj-cd> I can set the seed into this directory
<CarlosRuiz> thinking ....
<CarlosRuiz> the problem is that branch or trunk it will modify core classes
<CarlosRuiz> I think is better to include it into trunk but in official way
<vpj-cd> yes
<vpj-cd> this can be good option
<CarlosRuiz> what do others think? hengsin? teo?
<vpj-cd> ok then I st into manufacturing diretory are you?
<teo_sarca> i agree
<hengsin> my concern is the impact on the stability of trunk.
<hengsin> victor, how much changes is there ?
<kontro> Sounds like we have to make couple interfaces and use factory pattern...
<vpj-cd> I think if we can in manufacturing directory
<vpj-cd> if you want compile you need add into /utils_dev/build.xml
-->| CarlosRuiz__ (n=chatzill@Dynamic-IP-cr2001187233.cable.net.co) has joined #adempiere-team
<vpj-cd> this way we donot touch the code
<CarlosRuiz__> my connection is very unstable :-(
<vpj-cd> no problem CArlos we can wait
<vpj-cd> what do others think? hengsin? teo?
<vpj-cd> <vpj-cd> ok then I st into manufacturing diretory are you?
<vpj-cd> <teo_sarca> i agree
<vpj-cd> <hengsin> my concern is the impact on the stability of trunk.
<vpj-cd> <hengsin> victor, how much changes is there ?
<vpj-cd> <vpj-cd> I think if we can in manufacturing directory
<vpj-cd> <kontro> Sounds like we have to make couple interfaces and use factory pattern...
<vpj-cd> <vpj-cd> if you want compile you need add into /utils_dev/build.xml
<vpj-cd> * CarlosRuiz__ (n=chatzill@Dynamic-IP-cr2001187233.cable.net.co) ha entrado en #adempiere-team
<vpj-cd> <vpj-cd> this way we donot touch the code
|<-- CarlosRuiz has left freenode (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer))
=-= CarlosRuiz__ is now known as CarlosRuiz
|<-- CarlosRuiz_ has left freenode (Connection timed out)
<CarlosRuiz> <hengsin> my concern is the impact on the stability of trunk. -> yes, me too
<CarlosRuiz> we must take very care of touching the core classes
<CarlosRuiz> better double or triple check on that :-)
<CarlosRuiz> the manufacturing subdirectory is ok for me
<CarlosRuiz> and the core classes maybe reviewed with hengsin and/or me
<hengsin> sounds ok to me too but victor you mention earlier you have change some core classes
<kontro> Why not use branch then? It is not that much work to run merge with trunk every second day.
<teo_sarca> i added this to wiki: http://www.adempiere.com/wiki/index.php/Extensions_Friendly_Proposal
<kontro> svn is quite smart. I tested with my badly outdated new_build_scripts branch. It was still easy to merge with current trunk. Even files which were copied in different directory found their updates.
<teo_sarca> please checkout and improve :)
<teo_sarca> is only a tag line
<teo_sarca> maybe i missed something !
<kontro> When manufacturing is tested and stable it is easy to merge into trunk.
<teo_sarca> what you think ?
<CarlosRuiz> good seed Teo
<CarlosRuiz> it's true kontro
<CarlosRuiz> Victor, do you agree to have a monitored branch
<vpj-cd> yes I have not problem
<CarlosRuiz> I mean, a branch for manufacturing but monitored by CC
-->| AFalcone2 (n=AFalcone@190.49.105.69) has joined #adempiere-team
<vpj-cd> I can use directory or branch
<CarlosRuiz> like if the branch were trunk
<kontro> The key is keep branch up to date with trunk then there will be no problems merging it back.
<CarlosRuiz> I mean, currently branches are for experimental, and most of them are not being monitored by CC
<CarlosRuiz> but this branch is going to be
<CarlosRuiz> ok?
|<-- AFalcone has left freenode ("Chatzilla 0.9.77 [Firefox 2.0.0.1/2006120418]")
<vpj-cd> yes is fine to me
<vpj-cd> the I create the branch
<hengsin> ok, I agree
<kontro> We should also make branches for latest release and commit bugfixes there. Then we could do more experimental staff in trunk.
<vpj-cd> how I think set branch_331
<CarlosRuiz> ok, there will be a problem with branches that needs dictionary entries, like manufacturing
<vpj-cd> is agree?
<CarlosRuiz> that must be centralized anyway
<hengsin> victor, lets call that manufacturing branch, 331 will be confusing
<vpj-cd> yes but I can set a directory into manufacturin with seed
<vpj-cd> ok
<kontro> With ddl it is bit easier to make diffs about AD changes.
<vpj-cd> fine manufacturing branch or libero branch is more short :-)
<CarlosRuiz> yes, but AD must be centralized because the sequences, and to preserve stabilization
<hengsin> either name is good for me
<vpj-cd> yes I am use ddutils to rename my dictionary from MPC_ to PP_
<vpj-cd> and all wirked fine
<CarlosRuiz> I have to go :-(
<vpj-cd> I could migrate all the code
<hengsin> carlos, we can reserved a range for victor's branch
<vpj-cd> an other cuestion
<CarlosRuiz> hengsin, I would prefer to keep an eye on dictionary
<kontro> CarlosRuiz, sequence number is not a problem as long as we are not talking about production installations.
<vpj-cd> can we can release 3.1.4 ?
<CarlosRuiz> I think yes, 3.1.4 is ok for me
<hengsin> yes
<CarlosRuiz> in 31 :-)
<vpj-cd> yes I can use 50000 as 2pack
<CarlosRuiz> the opposite of 13 :-)
<vpj-cd> ok
<kontro> hh
<CarlosRuiz> gtg, can someone make today the executive summary? and drop the complete log in wiki?
<CarlosRuiz> today or tomorrow, no problem
<hengsin> ok
|<-- kontro has left freenode ("Leaving")
<vpj-cd> ok
<CarlosRuiz> bye, please let me know if someone is going to make the summary, if not, please send me the complete log, and I'll make it
<hengsin> carlos, what other option if we don't use reserved range for victor ?
<hengsin> carlos, I'll send u the log, u can think about it and conclude on this last part (the sequence issue)
<hengsin> ok ?
<vpj-cd> I can use 50000 sequences as 2pack
<vpj-cd> I can use 60000 if you want
<vpj-cd> or continue with 50000 as 2 pack
<CarlosRuiz> ok hengsin
<hengsin> thats it for today then :)
<CarlosRuiz> Victor, when you need modifications in dictionary just drop me an e-mail, I'll assign the dictionary entries
<CarlosRuiz> we look how we advance
<CarlosRuiz> and if some better mechanism appears
<vpj-cd> ok
<CarlosRuiz> ok, thank you very much
<CarlosRuiz> bye everybody
<vpj-cd> bye
|<-- CarlosRuiz has left freenode ("Chatzilla 0.9.77 [Firefox 2.0.0.1/2006120418]")
<vpj-cd> ok Low
<vpj-cd> then I create new brach
<vpj-cd> and begin set all here
<hengsin> ok
<hengsin> teo, the wiki entry looks good except I think we agree to drop the package finding part
<hengsin> guys, if your have time, please give your opinions on this three items
<hengsin>
<hengsin> [ 1564524 ] WebStart property file per target server
<hengsin>
<hengsin> [ 1639206 ] Override default preference with no source modifcation
<hengsin>
<hengsin> [ 1631888 ] Lazy loading of tab
<hengsin> gtg, next time. bye all :0
<--| YOU (hengsin) have left #adempiere-team
