ofbiz-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Snow <sno...@snowconsulting.co.uk>
Subject Re: Moving securityext to the framework
Date Sat, 02 Jan 2010 23:07:16 GMT
David E Jones wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2010, at 2:42 PM, Bruno Busco wrote:
>
>   
>>> One major question is whether framework, on its own, should even be
>>> runnable as an application. In my opinion, it is a library, not an app
>>> and doesn't need to be operational on its own.
>>>       
>> The more we discuss about this the more I get convinced that what we
>> (or at least me) intend for framework-only distribution should be
>> better named "OFBiz-core".
>> The OFBiz-core could consist of framework + party + content + commonext.
>>
>> A distribution with these components set up is somewhat similar to
>> what I mean for a framework where developer can start building its
>> office automation application without the necessity to disable
>> anything but having all the power of the framework and the "core"
>> applications.
>>     
>
> Your "at least me" comment is right on. Consider that what you want, at least right now,
is framework + party + content + commonext. Do you think that will be the same for your next
project? Do you think that this is the same for a majority of current and prospective users
of OFBiz?
>
> I'd be willing to bet a good deal of money that this level of granularity is not adequate
to describe what you actually need/want, and that within each of the parts you listed (framework,
party, content, commonext) there are dozens or hundreds of more specific things that you either
want or don't want.
>
> Now consider that with many thousands of such things that will be wanted or not wanted,
there are an incredible number of combinations of these things. Each combination is a potential
"core" packaging of OFBiz.
>
> So, the question is what will be of most use to the largest number of users? That question
a good guiding thought, and because of the community nature of this project it will of course
be tempered by what contributors (committers or not) actually decide is important to them.
>
> Based on that, what should we change in how we're doing things?
>
> -David
>
>   
David,

Your view ties in very much with my recent experiences.  My last project 
just required framework + party, whereas my current project requires 
framework + party + workeffort.

This has made me question whether it is practical to separate the 
components as you will never know what combination you may need. 

Could the problem be approached from a different angle - if unwanted 
components are commented out and there are dependency issues, rather 
than missing dependencies causing fatal startup errors at startup, how 
about a warning being issued instead?

Cheers,

Chris

Mime
View raw message