Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ofbiz.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of dejc@me.com designates
 17.148.16.101 as permitted sender)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Re: Moving securityext to the framework
From: David E Jones <dejc@me.com>
In-reply-to: <f7554a951001021242n74fb022cge86851a7cedb2e1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 15:14:12 -0600
Message-id: <862A3AA6-5956-4515-94F3-05691AF06F46@me.com>
References: <f7554a950912110241r5142c102p2e843742f504de3a@mail.gmail.com>
 <f7554a950912291450s321ba158mf026cffefd87926b@mail.gmail.com>
 <4B3A8AA7.2070808@hlmksw.com>
 <f7554a950912291510x6b1878caqf640c3422dcbdd2b@mail.gmail.com>
 <f7554a950912291515u20e5a682sa0b6bd7722ef3f94@mail.gmail.com>
 <f7554a950912291518v27b60e17lb0f95c0b5d67ac4c@mail.gmail.com>
 <4B3A9112.3040203@hlmksw.com>
 <f7554a950912291541w1fa3684bp219c691743d56eea@mail.gmail.com>
 <4B3A96D1.1040800@hlmksw.com> <4B3FAABD.7070101@brainfood.com>
 <f7554a951001021242n74fb022cge86851a7cedb2e1@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org


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