adfemg
  1. adfemg
  2. ADFEMG-63

Bug 7502373 : PAGEDEF FILES NOT CREATED UNDER PAGEDEFS PATH FOR JSPX CREATED IN SUB-DIRECTORY

    Details

    • Type: Bug Bug
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Won't Fix
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      hi

      As pointed out in ...
      Bug 7502373 : PAGEDEF FILES NOT CREATED UNDER PAGEDEFS PATH FOR JSPX CREATED IN SUB-DIRECTORY
      ... and some OTN forum threads [1], Page Definition files can end up "all over the place"
      (also illustrated by http://www.consideringred.com/files/oracle/img/2011/PageDefLocations.png ).

      But bug 7502373 currently has "Status 32 - Not a Bug. To Filer", so it does not look like this behaviour will be improved in the context of this bug 7502373.

      • (q1) Why does bug 7502373 have "Status 32 - Not a Bug. To Filer"?
      • (q2) Do any other bugs (or enhancement requests) exist that try to improve (the consistency of) the location where Page Definition files are created?

      A related suggestion was done in JIRA issue ADFEMG-60 .

      many thanks
      Jan Vervecken

        Activity

        Hide
        Jan Vervecken added a comment -

        fyi

        Some aspects pointed out in this JIRA issue ADFEMG-63 seem to make more sense in the context of naming guidelines like [ADFng1-03021] and [ADFng1-03022], about "the directory structures and packages to use for the bounded task flows and their relating objects", in the "ADF Naming and Project Layout Guidelines v1.00"
        at http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/developer-tools/adf/learnmore/adf-naming-layout-guidelines-v1-00-1897849.pdf

        regards
        Jan Vervecken

        Show
        Jan Vervecken added a comment - fyi Some aspects pointed out in this JIRA issue ADFEMG-63 seem to make more sense in the context of naming guidelines like [ADFng1-03021] and [ADFng1-03022] , about "the directory structures and packages to use for the bounded task flows and their relating objects", in the "ADF Naming and Project Layout Guidelines v1.00" at http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/developer-tools/adf/learnmore/adf-naming-layout-guidelines-v1-00-1897849.pdf regards Jan Vervecken
        Hide
        chriscmuir added a comment -

        On this clarification, I'm willing to include a section in the Guidelines of alternatives approaches to laying out the components, as long as somebody defines the complete set of guidelines and has tested it in a multi-application-workspace with ADF Libraries to detect naming collisions. This would be with an eye to providing readers a choice.

        Thanks,

        CM.

        Show
        chriscmuir added a comment - On this clarification, I'm willing to include a section in the Guidelines of alternatives approaches to laying out the components, as long as somebody defines the complete set of guidelines and has tested it in a multi-application-workspace with ADF Libraries to detect naming collisions. This would be with an eye to providing readers a choice. Thanks, CM.
        Hide
        Jan Vervecken added a comment -

        Thank you for the update Chris.

        • about "... as long as somebody defines the complete set of guidelines and has tested it ..."
          • Currently I don't have the time or experience to define such alternative, and sufficiently generic, guidelines.

        regards
        Jan Vervecken

        Show
        Jan Vervecken added a comment - Thank you for the update Chris. about "... as long as somebody defines the complete set of guidelines and has tested it ..." Currently I don't have the time or experience to define such alternative, and sufficiently generic, guidelines. regards Jan Vervecken
        Hide
        chriscmuir added a comment -

        In looking at the history of this issue, besides the closed bug 7502373, I do not see any other ERs or bugs logged against this issue. If within a week there hasn't been an update to this issue I'll close it.

        Show
        chriscmuir added a comment - In looking at the history of this issue, besides the closed bug 7502373, I do not see any other ERs or bugs logged against this issue. If within a week there hasn't been an update to this issue I'll close it.
        Hide
        Jan Vervecken added a comment -

        Thank you for the update Chris.

        • about "What about giving JDeveloper users a choice between the current approach (apparently preferred by the Fusion Application development process), and something else that allows to avoid multiple top-level packages with Page Definition files (which could fit in many naming standards and could avoid moving of Page Definition files)?"
          • Without an answer to this question, if I ever come up with a related enhancement request (that has a chance to be considered) I will create another issue.
            Now closing this JIRA issue ADFEMG-63.

        regards
        Jan Vervecken

        Show
        Jan Vervecken added a comment - Thank you for the update Chris. about "What about giving JDeveloper users a choice between the current approach (apparently preferred by the Fusion Application development process), and something else that allows to avoid multiple top-level packages with Page Definition files (which could fit in many naming standards and could avoid moving of Page Definition files)?" Without an answer to this question, if I ever come up with a related enhancement request (that has a chance to be considered) I will create another issue. Now closing this JIRA issue ADFEMG-63 . regards Jan Vervecken

          People

          • Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            Jan Vervecken
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            0 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: