IRC logs of #tryton for Sunday, 2009-11-29 #tryton log beginning Sun Nov 29 00:00:02 CET 2009
2009-11-29 00:43 -!- ikks_(n=ikks@ has joined #tryton
2009-11-29 01:33 -!- sharoon( 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( has joined #tryton
2009-11-29 09:43 -!- Timitos(n=timitos@ has joined #tryton
2009-11-29 10:41 -!- sharoon( has joined #tryton
2009-11-29 10:55 -!- cedk( 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>
2009-11-29 11:39 -!- b_52light(n=b_52ligh@ has joined #tryton
2009-11-29 11:43 -!- paepke( has joined #tryton
2009-11-29 12:02 -!- paepke_( 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@ has joined #tryton
2009-11-29 15:42 -!- b_52light_(n=b_52ligh@ 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:
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( 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:
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( 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 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!