Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-ofbiz-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 89148 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2010 00:43:12 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Jan 2010 00:43:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 89105 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jan 2010 00:43:11 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ofbiz-dev-archive@ofbiz.apache.org Received: (qmail 89070 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jan 2010 00:43:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ofbiz.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@ofbiz.apache.org Received: (qmail 89060 invoked by uid 99); 4 Jan 2010 00:43:11 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:43:11 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of dejc@me.com designates 17.148.16.104 as permitted sender) Received: from [17.148.16.104] (HELO asmtpout029.mac.com) (17.148.16.104) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:43:03 +0000 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Received: from [10.8.5.30] ([64.74.245.37]) by asmtp029.mac.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-8.01 (built Dec 16 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPSA id <0KVP00GP15Z3L930@asmtp029.mac.com> for dev@ofbiz.apache.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2010 16:42:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Moving securityext to the framework From: David E Jones In-reply-to: <598524.47103.qm@web63102.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 18:42:39 -0600 Message-id: References: <598524.47103.qm@web63102.mail.re1.yahoo.com> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) On Jan 3, 2010, at 2:04 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > --- On Sun, 1/3/10, David E Jones wrote: >> One way or another if we're moving things around, >> especially moving higher level stuff into the framework, >> then we should definitely discuss it first and even try to >> reach a consensus around it. >> >> For example, one specific idea might be to move some of the >> email stuff from content to the framework somewhere. Sending >> and receiving emails is pretty low-level, though that >> doesn't mean we'd want to move all of it as the >> CommunicationEvent stuff is definitely higher level and ties >> to many many other things in the system, and that's a much >> harder line to draw. >> >> For the most part the dividing line between framework and >> the base applications is that business-driven things stay in >> the apps, and technical facilitation and interfacing lives >> in the framework. If we want to change that, it would be a >> big change, and you can certainly expect some disagreement. > > This is the same thing I tried to suggest. The framework should include only those things needed to get an application to run, and not include application code. > > From my perspective, sending and receiving emails is an application. It could run on top of the framework, and other applications could utilize it. Aren't most programs that run on top of an operating system applications? How does that help us draw the line? Also if email is a higher level function that should only be supported on an application level, what about MCA rules and email libraries in the Java API? Aren't those both pretty low level things? Doesn't that muddy the distinction more than clarify it? -David