ofbiz-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adrian Crum <adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com>
Subject Re: Open Standards for OFBiz
Date Sat, 10 Jan 2015 17:18:51 GMT
I don't see how that page is related to Moqui or Hemp. I remember David 
trying to rally support for a set of design documents - something OFBiz 
desperately needs.

Yes, they are neglected. But from my perspective, they are essential.

Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software

On 1/10/2015 5:44 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> I even wonder if we should not get rid of the OFBREQDES workpspace all
> together
> Since then David has created Moqui and Hemp. It seems to me that people
> interested should rather refer to them than this now deprecated workspace.
> Jacques
> Le 07/01/2015 22:53, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>> I think we can remove this page
>> Jacques
>> Le 26/11/2014 15:12, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBREQDES/Open+Standards+for+OFBiz
>>> This page appears to be old and probably in need of update.
>>> Some of the sentences using the future tense should be changed to say
>>> that the work proposed has been done.
>>> It does provide an important information about the fundamental
>>> philosophy of OFBiz.
>>> The whole OFBiz Requirements and Designs
>>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBREQDES> space seems
>>> to be neglected.
>>> I am not sure that this  Confluence space is currently being used and
>>> perhaps the material that is still relevant could be moved to a
>>> better place.
>>> Some seems to belong in the end-user doc (the page referenced above
>>> Open Standards for OFBiz
>>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBREQDES/Open+Standards+for+OFBiz>
>>> seems to fit that as does the whole section Universal Business
>>> Process Library Index
>>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBREQDES/Universal+Business+Process+Library+Index>)
>>> Some seems to be technical docs.
>>> I am not sure how much is useful for understanding current technical
>>> state but perhaps some of the more knowledgeable members could sort
>>> some of this out.

View raw message