ofbiz-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ruppert <tim.rupp...@hotwaxmedia.com>
Subject Re: Moving securityext to the framework
Date Sat, 02 Jan 2010 20:59:16 GMT
Those of us with strong Unix backgounds really don't want to see anything named "core" - so
I'd say let's look for some other name.  What you're pushing for Bruno - is much needed and
could be a great enhancement to the usage of OFBiz.  Anything that'll make it easier for people
to build - non-eCommerce related applications without having to disable anything is a huge
win in my book.

Cheers,
Ruppert
--
Tim Ruppert
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595

On Jan 2, 2010, at 1:42 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.
> 
> -Bruno


Mime
View raw message