Anonymous | Login
Project:
RSS
  
News | My View | View Issues | Roadmap | Summary

View Issue DetailsJump to Notes ] Issue History ] Print ]
ID
0008814
TypeCategorySeverityReproducibilityDate SubmittedLast Update
feature request[Openbravo ERP] Z. Othersminorhave not tried2009-04-28 17:442009-05-01 00:00
ReporterplujanView Statuspublic 
Assigned Topjuvara 
PrioritynormalResolutionno change requiredFixed in Version
StatusclosedFix in branchFixed in SCM revision
ProjectionnoneETAnoneTarget Version
OSAnyDatabaseAnyJava version
OS VersionDatabase versionAnt version
Product VersionSCM revision 
Review Assigned To
Web browser
ModulesCore
Regression level
Regression date
Regression introduced in release
Regression introduced by commit
Triggers an Emergency PackNo
Summary

0008814: Names should be clarified: Modules > Module > Package > Template

DescriptionIn my opinion, 2.50 has not a clear naming for Modularity stuff.
All the naming is centered on "Module" as the strongest entity: You have a Module window, an AD_Module table, a Module Management Console and so on.
But after a while, you realize that modules are just a part of the structure. You have also a "Package" and an "Industry Template". A Package is a set of modules (a package can contain packages as well) and a Template is a Package plus a configuration set.
The confusing part of it is that if you want to install a Package (remember, a set of modules) you have to perform the "Add a module" action. That is confusing. It would be more accurate to "Add a package" instead (even if the action is the same behind scenes)
Icons should be more consistent also. That strange green cube that looks like a Lego's piece is used most for Modules, but opening the details for one module you will see that other icon (like a Lego coming out of a box)
From an user perspective, moving to a "Module Management Console" and "Install a Module" to add a package can be confusing.
TagsNo tags attached.
Attached Files

- Relationships Relation Graph ] Dependency Graph ]

-  Notes
(0015969)
pjuvara (reporter)
2009-04-30 18:23

Thanks for the feedback but I do not find this feature request to be actionable.
Rather than a feature request it looks like a constructive critique, which is very much appreciated but difficult to be acted upon as feature request.
I would suggest to post this comment in the User Experience forum to make sure that it is received.

- Issue History
Date Modified Username Field Change
2009-04-28 17:44 plujan New Issue
2009-04-28 17:44 plujan Assigned To => rafaroda
2009-04-28 17:44 plujan Regression testing => No
2009-04-30 10:36 rafaroda Assigned To rafaroda => pjuvara
2009-04-30 18:23 pjuvara Status new => closed
2009-04-30 18:23 pjuvara Note Added: 0015969
2009-04-30 18:23 pjuvara Resolution open => no change required
2009-05-01 00:00 anonymous sf_bug_id 0 => 2784657


Copyright © 2000 - 2009 MantisBT Group
Powered by Mantis Bugtracker