ofbiz-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David E. Jones" <jone...@undersunconsulting.com>
Subject Re: Ofbiz and Ruby on Rails
Date Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:53:23 GMT

It's an interesting thought, but keep in mind we're talking about a  
few hundred thousand lines of user interface level artifacts in OFBiz.

If it is significantly more efficient, and I mean really significant  
proven by moving a couple of areas over and comparing the code  
complexity between the two, then it might be a good way to go. To be  
honest, this would surprise me somewhat, but such surprises are often  
eventually good ones. In a way I'd like to see this done because I  
think this sort of efficiency is an area where OFBiz shines a bit  
more than you seem to be guessing... ;)

But being "a fairly small project"... rewriting this much business  
logic is not easy in any language. It would be a major undertaking  
requiring tens of thousands of hours of effort by careful and fairly  
skilled developers.

-David


On Aug 4, 2006, at 10:40 PM, Chris Howe wrote:

> My curiosity is that there are several reasons why
> various people are attracted to this project
> 1) The data model (data layer)
> 2) The framework (database manipulation, etc)
> 3) The applications (business logic)
> 4) The widgets (presentation layer)
> 5) and so on
>
> The data model is what it is and can be used in any
> framework.
>
> The time consuming part of the business logic doesn't
> come from the lines of code, but the thought process.
> Since the thought process is fairly straight forward,
> rewriting the business logic in another language would
> be a fairly small project.
>
> Half of the presentation layer (at least on the
> backend) is created automatically with RoR's scaffold.
>  So, that's a fairly small project to translate with
> huge UI benefits compared to the OFBiz community
> project's current UI.
>
> The discussion I'm after isn't so much about changing
> Java to RoR, but hypothetically what does one lose by
> leaving Java for RoR and can the apparent benefits of
> RoR be obtained in a Java based OFBiz?
>
> If the answer is that you don't lose much by switching
> to RoR and the benefits of RoR cannot be easily
> obtained in a Java based OFBiz, then the question
> should be about changing Java to RoR.  There seems to
> be a lot of interest in improving the UI in OFBiz, but
> not so much through the tools that currently exist.
> If you don't lose much with RoR on functionality, why
> reinvent the wheel, just throw on some new racing
> slicks ;)
>
> --- BJ Freeman <bjfree@free-man.net> wrote:
>
>> Not sure why as discussion about changing java to
>> RoR.
>> that is the same as saying change compiere to ofbiz.
>>
>> That would be one big undertaking, as it is now,
>> there are enough people
>> doing testing ofbiz.
>> That I would think would be a more constructive
>> discussion.
>>
>>
>> Chris Howe sent the following on 8/4/2006 8:30 PM:
>>> Judging by the responses I think I misunderstand
>> RoR.
>>> In my newly introduced mind I see RoR being of the
>>> same kind of animal as the OFBiz framework.  In
>> that
>>> mindset it would be a replacement of sorts.
>>>
>>> I was trying to weigh whether it would be easier
>> to
>>> expand OFBiz's UI capabilities with AJAX and
>> getting a
>>> consensus on what an OFBiz template should and
>> should
>>> not include (ie OFBiz standards) for modularity
>> sake
>>> and what not or to rewrite OFBiz's busines logic
>> in
>>> RoR.
>>>
>>> The majority of the actual usefulness that I saw
>> with
>>> RoR was the way it "consumes" data be it from a
>> local
>>> database or a webservice.
>>>
>>> So, my question was more towards what is the ofbiz
>>> framework giving us that Ror can't or doesn't
>> easily.
>>>
>>> And what benefits does RoR offer that can/can't be
>>> replicated in OFBiz?
>>>
>>> --- David E Jones <jonesde@undersunconsulting.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is an interesting topic from an
>> infrastructure
>>>> perspective. It
>>>> sounds like there is some suggestion of
>>>> incorporating it into the
>>>> framework and moving to it as the standard UI
>> layer
>>>> tool set...
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone done any conversions of existing OFBiz
>>>> artifacts to
>>>> compare size and complexity and establish some
>>>> prospective tools or
>>>> patterns for integration with other pieces and
>> such?
>>>> Actually, from a
>>>> PoC perspective once could do the same things we
>> did
>>>> early on with
>>>> OFBiz: define the artifacts and make sure we can
>>>> define everything we
>>>> want, and then build the engine behind them. In
>>>> other words we
>>>> defined XSD (or DTD in the early days) files, and
>>>> some text XML files
>>>> based on them to develop towards and support.
>> These
>>>> were written to
>>>> replace specific pages, usually picking a more
>>>> complicated one. For
>>>> example, the first form widget form in OFBiz was
>> the
>>>> EditProduct form
>>>> with the two columns and such, and that form
>>>> definition existed even
>>>> before the form widget engine.
>>>>
>>>> This sort of PoC effort would be the first step
>> for
>>>> anything like this.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 4, 2006, at 6:45 PM, Leon Torres wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah we've been looking into this kind of thing
>>>> and talking to some
>>>>> people about Rails and OFBiz.  This is actually
>> a
>>>> huge topic which
>>>>> might be better discussed at a conference or
>>>> something.
>>>>> - Leon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>>>>> Si and Leon and others,
>>>>>> I just started to look at some Ruby on Rails
>>>> stuff and
>>>>>> was curious as to your impressions of what
>>>> aspects of
>>>>>> OFBiz could not be replicated in RoR.  Or is it
>>>>>> possible to get off Java entirely?  How much of
>>>> OFBiz
>>>>>> could be entirely reused vs. how much would
>> just
>>>> be
>>>>>> translating templates, etc?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>


Mime
View raw message