ofbiz-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Moving commonext from applycations to specialpurpose
Date Sun, 23 Nov 2014 12:01:45 GMT
Hi all,

IIRW, components like commonext, securityext and entityext were constructed
and implemented by the community to enable developers (users/contributors)
to extend the functionalities in lower level components (services et al)
and create commonalities that can be shared between components on the same
and/or higher level, so that the lower level functionalities change as
little as possible.

Thus leading to:

   -  hot--deploy extends (and/or uses) hot-deploy, special purpose, apps &
   framework components
   - special purpose extends (and/or uses) special purpose,  apps &
   framework components
   - apps extends (and/or uses) apps & framework components
   - framework extends (and/or uses) framework components

Examples are:
Manufacturing extends workeffort, party, etc
ProjectMgr extends workeffort, party, etc

Such a paradigm is easy to understand, and creates the least amount of
confusion (for the developer, tester, etc) when having to resolve issues
relating to dependencies. If and when we move a lower level component to a
higher lever, we increase this confusion. This should be avoided as much as
possible, because removing the confusion leads to (more) rework.

As Taher explained in his posting there are same and higher level
dependencies on commonext. Reworking that, in order to maintain the
paradigm described above, will require a lot of effort and takes a lot of
time to have it completed. Are we willing to go there? Can we achieve that
in a reasonable amount of time? Is that needed?

We haven't seen many contributions to this component. That is true. It is a
placeholder, provided by this community, that enables each users to extend
for their own purposes. Period.
That no enhancements/improvements to this component make their way back
into the project may indicate two things:

   1. The component works perfectly regarding its intent.
   2. People don't feel the need to share what they have in their own
   version

Re 1: Kudos to all who have come up with the paradigm and have it
implemented in OFBiz.

Re 2: Maybe that is because what is share regarding this is included in the
OFBiz code as an enhancement to a component on a lower level. Maybe that is
because what the individual user has in his component is subject to an NDA.
Or the user believes that what he has is so specific that he considers that
functionality of totally no use for others.
Such are the facts of life, and I accept that. This is the prerogative that
each of us has!

So, let it be where it is and don't worry about it. Cost of maintenance (as
it is) is low.

And the above applies to securityext as well.

Now, if there is a dependency on a higher level component (and there is one
in this component, IIRW), we - as the community - should fix this specific
issue. That would indicate that we move stuff from lower to higher.
If the component has stuff that we feel is better to have in another
component on the same level, we can fix that too. When talking about the
NoteData entity (and accompanying functions), I believe we should have this
moved to content.

But what about entityext?
Following the paradigm outlined above, this shouldn't be in framework, but
at the next higher level (apps). Shouldn't we move that one?

And what about the other components in framework, that enables users to
interact with OFBiz? We have webtools containing stuff regarding base data
manipulation feature, and more. Shouldn't that move to apps (or higher) as
well? Like I initiated with

On the other hand, we have a component in special purpose that extends base
authentication and integration. This component is called ldap. Shouldn't
functionalities in there move to the lowest level?

And shouldn't we move the functionalities in the lucene component in
special purpose move to the apps level? It seems to be a better fit there.

My apologies for the lengthiness of this post. Couldn't do it in a shorter
way. Anyway, a clear and shared vision helps us all. Discussing pros and
cons of viewpoints help to get there.

Regards,


Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappellato@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:

> Do you agree that specialpurpose would be a better fit for the commonext
> component that is currently under the applications folder?
> It extends the default data model adding new fields to the NoteData entity
> and provides some special purpose features.
>
> Jacopo
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message