| chat.freenode.net #tryton log beginning Sun Nov 29 00:00:02 CET 2009 | ||
| 2009-11-29 00:43 -!- ikks_(n=ikks@190.158.120.187) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-11-29 01:33 -!- sharoon(n=sharoont@opg066b.halls.manchester.ac.uk) has left #tryton | ||
| 2009-11-29 02:19 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: we wrote some modules to handle returns from the purchase point of view but we did not yet publish it | ||
| 2009-11-29 02:19 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: if you want, we can give you access | ||
| 2009-11-29 02:20 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: ping me later, I'm going to bed | ||
| 2009-11-29 05:18 -!- yangoon(n=mathiasb@p549F43F5.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-11-29 09:43 -!- Timitos(n=timitos@88.217.184.172) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-11-29 10:41 -!- sharoon(n=sharoont@opg066b.halls.manchester.ac.uk) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-11-29 10:55 -!- cedk(n=ced@ced.homedns.org) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-11-29 11:30 <CIA-13> Timitos roundup * #1319/traceback requests for sheduled action don't work any more: [new] when a sheduled action fails by an exception i do not get a request with the traceback anymore. you can test this with the sheduled actions ... | ||
| 2009-11-29 11:30 <CIA-13> http://bugs.tryton.org/roundup/issue1319 | ||
| 2009-11-29 11:39 -!- b_52light(n=b_52ligh@41.249.73.167) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-11-29 11:43 -!- paepke(n=paepke@p5B32D725.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-11-29 12:02 -!- paepke_(n=paepke@p5B32E6F0.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-11-29 12:42 <b_52light> hi | ||
| 2009-11-29 12:42 <b_52light> could i ask a question related to openerp/tryton ? | ||
| 2009-11-29 13:17 <cedk> b_52light: don't ask to ask, simply ask | ||
| 2009-11-29 13:26 <cedk> ACTION bbl | ||
| 2009-11-29 13:55 <b_52light> cedk, i installed pydev with eclipse imported openerp-server , but i have run openerp-server with postgres user ! | ||
| 2009-11-29 13:58 <b_52light> under eclipse i mean | ||
| 2009-11-29 14:05 -!- ikks_(n=ikks@190.158.114.165) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-11-29 15:42 -!- b_52light_(n=b_52ligh@41.140.86.220) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:15 <cedk> b_52light_: I don't see any question | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:20 <b_52light_> cedk, sorry , it's ok fixed it , problem of unix's right :d | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:24 <b_52light_> does tryton have a webclient ? if yes with wich framework ? | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:32 <cedk> b_52light_: not yet | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:35 <b_52light_> cedk, just readed that extJS is a candidate ? , (will use extjs direct for remoting) ? | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:36 <cedk> b_52light_: it is more between qooxdoo and gwt | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:36 <b_52light_> gwt :( hm java ?! | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:37 <cedk> b_52light_: it is javascript | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:37 <b_52light_> cedk, yeah but yu develop in java ? and gwt comiler generate js | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:38 <b_52light_> could i ask why extjs was not considered ? | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:39 <sharoon> cedk: saw your blueprint on integrated email in tryton... who's implementing it? any progress so far? | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:39 <cedk> b_52light_: I see extjs more like a set of widget instead of a web application framework | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:40 <cedk> sharoon: for now nobody, it is a blueprint | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:41 <b_52light_> cedk, yeah kinda | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:41 <sharoon> cedk: thanks, wanted to know! | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:42 <cedk> sharoon: the goal is to replace request with better stuff and more open | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:42 <cedk> sharoon: I'm also looking to google wave | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:42 <sharoon> cedk: ok | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:42 <sharoon> cedk: google wave is a good idea! | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:43 <cedk> sharoon: yes, but it is perhaps too early | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:43 <cedk> sharoon: there is no client (as far as I know) except the google one | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:43 <sharoon> cedk: i agree, it snot very stable yet, but the idea is good... afterall its open standard and email is a 40 yr old technology | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:45 <cedk> sharoon: yes, but I think it will take time before it reaches the business IT | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:45 <sharoon> cedk: http://enterprise2blog.com/2009/11/integrating-google-wave-into-the-enterprise/ | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:46 <cedk> sharoon: yes but it doesn't replace email | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:46 <sharoon> cedk: it doesnt.. no locking down | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:47 <cedk> sharoon: so for now, I think the best is to integrate email and later wave with perhaps a crossover | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:48 <sharoon> cedk: ok, have you seen poweremail? | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:49 <cedk> sharoon: a little | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:49 <sharoon> cedk: that implements generic email architecture for Open ERP | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:49 <sharoon> cedk: uses mako for templating, so very very flexible | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:49 <cedk> sharoon: sending email | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:50 <sharoon> cedk: yes emails for any object can be templated and any report attached to the model can be sent too | ||
| 2009-11-29 16:51 <sharoon> cedk: it integrates with server actions so easy to make auto email | ||
| 2009-11-29 17:38 -!- FWiesing(n=FWiesing@194-208-185-012.tele.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:15 <cedk> sharoon: Tryton doesn't have "yet" server actions but we already tought about this feature | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:15 <sharoon> cedk: ok, its not complex anyway :-) | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:15 <cedk> sharoon: and the OpenERP one is not good enough for us | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:16 <sharoon> cedk: OK, i can agree to that as well! | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:16 <cedk> sharoon: when I will have time, I will write a blueprint on this also | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:17 <sharoon> cedk: i can help with the email part.... i wrote poweremail for open erp anyway | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:17 <cedk> sharoon: the first step is to validate the blueprint | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:18 <sharoon> cedk: sure, let the community decide.... and once its finalised i can contribute | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:20 <cedk> sharoon: the harder part will be to write the twisted code | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:20 <sharoon> cedk: i agree | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:21 <sharoon> cedk: but we need to really decide if its necessary to have it | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:22 <cedk> sharoon: imap is needed but if you know other python library | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:22 <sharoon> cedk: my question is why would you need twisted to implement IMAP receiving of mails? | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:23 <sharoon> cedk: let email servers handle the IMAP service and we will pull the emails by IMAP4/POP3 (w or w/o SSL) and store in a mailbox object | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:23 <cedk> sharoon: I think you did not understand the goal | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:23 <sharoon> cedk: sorry! | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:24 <cedk> sharoon: we will put a IMAP server with Tryton as backend | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:24 <sharoon> cedk: ok | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:25 <sharoon> cedk: why would u need that? | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:26 <cedk> sharoon: because if Tryton has email inside, you can link it with other models like a party, a project etc. | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:26 <cedk> sharoon: a big issue with emails in company is that the information is not shared | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:27 <sharoon> cedk: i agree with the rest of it... but why is an IMAP server required? | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:27 <cedk> sharoon: the goals is to be able to shared it | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:27 <cedk> sharoon: because users must be able to read emails | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:27 <sharoon> cedk: poweremail already shares emails... the way its implemented is: when an account is created the user groups which have access to it have to be specified | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:28 <sharoon> cedk: when a user logs in he has his personal mailbox and company mailbox | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:28 <sharoon> cedk: he sees his company mails (all the ones that his groups have access to) | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:29 <cedk> sharoon: I don't understand, where user logs? | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:30 <sharoon> cedk: user logs in, he sees the poweremail menu > Mail box >Personal & Company | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:30 <sharoon> just like any other object | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:31 <cedk> sharoon: I think people wants to use their prefered email client | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:31 <cedk> sharoon: that is why we need IMAP | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:32 <sharoon> cedk: so you are not really thinking of having email as an object within open erp | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:32 <sharoon> cedk: i got ur idea now | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:32 <cedk> sharoon: email will be stored in Tryton | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:33 <sharoon> cedk: hmm.. i understand the problem... since theres no web client accessing emails would be difficult if the tryton client is not there if an implementation is done in the way that poweremail does it | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:35 <cedk> sharoon: it is not a problem of missing webclient but there is a lot of good software that works well for email so we don't want to reinvent the well | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:35 <cedk> s/well/wheel/ | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:35 <sharoon> cedk: the moment we store emails (if not as binary/raw email object in db) then we have already reinvented the wheel | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:35 <sharoon> cedk: i see that the design you made is for single binary | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:37 <cedk> sharoon: storing email in DB is not reinveting the wheel | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:37 <sharoon> cedk: how do you plan the structure of mailbox? | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:38 <cedk> sharoon: it will be also possible to extend the email model to extract specific information from it like text, from, to etc. | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:38 <cedk> sharoon: like any mailbox, a tree structure with one INBOX (required by the spec of IMAP) | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:38 <sharoon> cedk: when you do the extraction, you nearly have the backend for a email system like thunderbird | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:39 <sharoon> cedk: without extraction of email header, we wont be able to identify the party | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:39 <cedk> sharoon: no, you must have html render, multipart email etc. | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:39 <sharoon> cedk: all that is really simple | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:40 <cedk> sharoon: yes, it is what we want and how we wroks in Tryton | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:40 <cedk> sharoon: making simple things | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:40 <sharoon> cedk: python imaplib is really powerful... the existing poweremail already does the multipart sending etc | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:40 <cedk> sharoon: but that will work for longtime | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:41 <sharoon> cedk: sending of html & text parts | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:41 <cedk> sharoon: I don't care about sending, we are on the receive part | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:41 <sharoon> cedk: attachments as attachments | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:41 <sharoon> cedk: even receiving is the same | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:42 <sharoon> cedk: if at all in future u want to have something like mail eater... generate records (eg tickets) from email it makes sense to have the mailbox object as expanded with to, bcc, cc, subject, mailbody etc | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:42 <cedk> sharoon: no, not by default | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:42 <sharoon> cedk: do you want to do it from the email client...? thats a lot of integration | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:43 <cedk> sharoon: and some can be function field, some will need store etc. | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:43 <cedk> sharoon: doing what? | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:43 <sharoon> cedk: otherwise it would look like you see emails in your email client , come back to tryton, search for the email and generate from it | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:43 <cedk> sharoon: generate what? | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:44 <sharoon> cedk: convert a mail into a communication for a new ticket etc | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:44 <sharoon> cedk: or even add it to the histroy of a partner | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:44 <sharoon> (or party) | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:46 <cedk> sharoon: no need to store it in field for that | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:47 <cedk> sharoon: KISS is the main goals in Tryton | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:47 <sharoon> cedk: ideally it should be a search on the email id of the addresses the party has | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:47 <cedk> so if it is not required by default, we don't do it | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:48 <sharoon> cedk: and another thing is if email sharing is the problem there are already tools which simply copy mail to multiple inboxes (of different users) etc | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:49 <sharoon> so i think the primary goal should be to integrate emails within the tryton architecture | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:50 <cedk> sharoon: copying is bad | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:51 <sharoon> cedk: i can tell you the splitter tomorrow | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:51 <cedk> sharoon: that is the goal of the blueprint | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:51 <sharoon> cedk: essentially it doesnt copy but the IMAP folder reflects the mails | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:51 <cedk> sharoon: and replace request by email | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:51 <sharoon> cedk: its a single instance of the mail | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:51 <sharoon> cedk: that should not be a problem, since the user has a email ID attached to his address. | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:52 <cedk> sharoon: that what I show in blueprint because email can be linked to many mailbox | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:52 <sharoon> cedk: but keeping the reply attached to the same request is a question.. there should be no subject changes then | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:52 <cedk> sharoon: what do you call email ID? | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:52 <sharoon> cedk: x@x.com | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:53 <sharoon> cedk: No ID | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:53 <cedk> sharoon: no, you can link replies with the internal id like it is done on mailing list | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:55 <cedk> it is the "Message-ID:" in the header | ||
| 2009-11-29 18:55 <sharoon> cedk: got you | ||
| 2009-11-29 19:14 <cedk> I updated wiki page to allow many users on one mailbox | ||
| 2009-11-29 20:31 -!- fladi(n=fladisch@85-126-245-143.static.xdsl-line.inode.at) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-11-29 20:47 <fladi> hi! i think i've found a bug whenaccessing tryton webdav provider through an apache2 proxypass directive. tryton uses absolute URLs in its collection, making it impossible to use it behind a reverse proxy because the URLs will contain the servername:port which contains the values as seen from in between apache2 and tryton. can anyone confirm? | ||
| 2009-11-29 20:48 <cedk> fladi: yes but I don't think it is a bug | ||
| 2009-11-29 20:49 <fladi> so it's not intended to be able to cooperate with apache or any other reverse proxy like nginx? | ||
| 2009-11-29 20:51 <cedk> fladi: I don't say that | ||
| 2009-11-29 20:51 <cedk> fladi: it is not a bug but a feature | ||
| 2009-11-29 20:51 <fladi> ok, sorry :-) | ||
| 2009-11-29 20:52 <fladi> so would it make sense to file a RFE in tryton bug tracking? | ||
| 2009-11-29 20:52 <cedk> fladi: but the webpage generated is more a trick then a feature | ||
| 2009-11-29 20:52 <cedk> fladi: why not | ||
| 2009-11-29 20:53 <fladi> ohhh, the absolut URLsare ony in the html page. i wrongly assumed the are the same for webdav. | ||
| 2009-11-29 20:55 <fladi> should have tested it first with cadaver :-) using a reverse proxy with webdav works well. | ||
| 2009-11-29 21:02 <paepke_> cedk, how can i make suggestions to your email-blueprint? here on irc? | ||
| 2009-11-29 21:28 <cedk> paepke: on the wiki | ||
| 2009-11-29 21:29 <paepke> cedk, ok, i leave comments with the comment function of the wiki |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!