ofbiz-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David E Jones <d...@me.com>
Subject Re: Compoinent locatinos was Contributor branch Proposal,
Date Tue, 20 Jul 2010 21:10:15 GMT

Don't be silly. Manufacturing is not an industry, it is a type of industry. Having shared
manufacturing data structures and services and generic screens is just as helpful as having
any sort of product or inventory or order handling artifacts.

For shared artifacts the original intent of the organization of the project (which has been
watered down by many committers not playing along) is that if specialpurpose applications
EVER need to share something, it is probably generic enough to put in a base applications.
In other words, as a rule of thumb, special purpose applications should NEVER use something
from another special purpose app and if something exists in a special purpose app that another
special purpose app could reuse then it should be moved from the first special purpose app
to a base application, which is meant to be shared, reused, and built upon.

You can disagree all you want, but without this sort of distinction things would be much more
disorganized and difficult to reuse, and the intent of OFBiz is to make things as easy as
possible to reuse and extend, so organization is critically important.

Unfortunately many committers don't feel it is so important which is why we have hundreds
of ridiculous dependencies from the framework to the base apps, from the base apps the special
purpose apps, and from one special purpose app to another, and NONE of that should be allowed.
That is why in my effort to right the wrongs of OFBiz with the Moqui framework, the framework
will be a SEPARATE PROJECT so that no backwards dependencies are possible. Also, another separate
project will be data structures (like the data model resource book, basically the OFBiz data
model cleaned up and made more consistent and removing a lot of stuff that isn't used or is
a bad idea) and common business-process oriented services (following patterns in OAGIS or
something similar). That will be separate from ANY application that an end-user can use.

IMO going in that direction is necessary because people just don't generally accept how critical
it is to organize things well in large software. Drawing certain clear lines like this helps
a lot and will make it far easier for those customizing and extending existing artifacts.

-David


On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:58 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:

> you can use that logic for a lot of industries.
> it would make ofbiz as a global application unwieldy.
> so have the manufacturing as it is now part of the specialpurpose and others can append
to it per thier specific manufacture business requires.
> you still have what you state as the reason for having it in the base apps, but can be
disconnected easily without effecting order flow or products.
> 
> 
> 
> David E Jones sent the following on 7/20/2010 1:45 PM:
>> 
>> For my part I think it's good to have manufacturing data structures and services
in base applications, and then different types of mfg apps as specialpurpose apps. There are
many different types of manufacturing, varying by what is being made, and they can benefit
from sharing underlying structures and services.
>> 
>> -David
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:29 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> 
>>> Sounds logical, but I guess history will not permit us to do that, or as you
said with a rather big effort!
>>> 
>>> Jacques
>>> 
>>> From: "BJ Freeman"<bjfree@free-man.net>
>>>> a matter of perspective.
>>>> manufacturing is a unique industry and being in the base applications, does
not meet the definition I stated. Just like ecommerce
>>>> got moved to specialpurposes so should manufacturing to meet the criteria
I stated.
>>>> 
>>>> this would require a large re-factoring having to do with orders, and products,
so I doubt it will be done.
>>>> however by taking Manufacturing out of the basic apps and the order flow
would make for a cleaner way to implement other vertical
>>>> markets.
>>>> 
>>>> David E Jones sent the following on 7/20/2010 9:31 AM:
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is pretty much how OFBiz has been organized for a long time. These
three layers are in the following directories:
>>>>> 
>>>>> * framework
>>>>> * applications (base applications)
>>>>> * specialpurpose (special purpose application)
>>>>> 
>>>>> -David
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 16, 2010, at 12:07 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> ofbiz, now has three basic layers, as I see it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> first is the framework, which should stand alone from the other layers.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Next is your basic Business layer needed for all businesses, to manage
relationships, cash flow, products. This level can have
>>>>>> interdependence and dependence on the framework.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> the top layer is the type of business one has, manufacturing, Ecommerce,
Travel. these don't really depended on each other,
>>>>>> unless you have a multidivisional organization and are driven by
different Business plans as to how to implement.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> True the Data model of manufacturing has some that lend itself to
products, but the manufacturing industry as such is different
>>>>>> than selling products, say retail and takes into different consideration.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I can see the benefit of having the auto integration of the toplevel
addons by your means, as well as added setup setup in the
>>>>>> setup module.
>>>>>> These would be a typical business plan process as described in the
SBA.Gov site.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Bruno Busco sent the following on 7/15/2010 10:51 PM:
>>>>>>> Having these extensions managed as add-on modules in a separate
repository
>>>>>>> will be beneficial to the OFBiz trunk.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I mean that this way of managing extensions will probabily require
>>>>>>> improvements in the trunk itself to better manage extensions.
(i.e.
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3373)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Having the extensions in the trunk could generate new dependency
problems
>>>>>>> (like we have now with many of OFBiz components) and will not
help setting
>>>>>>> in place a powerfull, community-wide method of managing extensions.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> My two cents,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -Bruno
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2010/7/15 BJ Freeman<bjfree@free-man.net>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Inlne:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> David E Jones sent the following on 7/15/2010 10:39 AM:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> This looks like more of a separate repository than a
branch of OFBiz.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> yes and no.
>>>>>>>> since it would usually not be merged back to ofbiz, yes,
being able to sync
>>>>>>>> trunk to branch that all in the branch work with no.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> First off, the term "branch" just doesn't apply. A branch
of a source
>>>>>>>>> repository is
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> effectively a copy of the repo that can be changed separately
>>>>>>>> that was the intention.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> and is meant to eventually be merged back into the trunk.
>>>>>>>> If a branch is not meant to be merged back into the trunk,
it is a fork.
>>>>>>>> So version 4.0 9.04, 10.4 will be merged back to the trunk?
>>>>>>>> or are they now Forks?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> What you're describing isn't even a fork as it doesn't
sound like it would
>>>>>>>>> be a copy of OFBiz that is changed separately,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> matter of perspective
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> but rather a repository for add-on modules.
>>>>>>>> of course they are addons.
>>>>>>>> for instance the manufacturing, travel and Eccommerce would
be defined as
>>>>>>>> addon, Just as the finacial Services, telecommunication,
Proffiessional
>>>>>>>> services, Insurance and HealthCare are in the vol II of data
model book.
>>>>>>>> so why limit it to just those vertical markets. there are
many.
>>>>>>>> By having the trunk brought into the Contributors "section"
they would
>>>>>>>> could access it and pull down everything at once to work
with or use.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Also, it sounds like it would best be done outside of
the ASF, especially
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> the reason to keep it was the ability to move the truck into
it.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> if you don't want a vote where PMC votes are binding... that's
all there is
>>>>>>>> at the ASF.
>>>>>>>> clarification  it was meant to communicate the popular vote
is meant as an
>>>>>>>> indicatore, but the PMC would be the deciding vote.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> For those interested, why not just create a sourceforge
or google code
>>>>>>>>> project and share commit access with others who are interested?
There is
>>>>>>>>> nothing that says OFBiz add-on modules have to be part
of the project, or
>>>>>>>>> that people can't create separate projects to do such
things. If various
>>>>>>>>> people want to work together to do so, from the community
spirit
>>>>>>>>> perspective... all the better!
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> it also gives ofbiz a greater appeal to the users that may
use ofbiz in a
>>>>>>>> vertical market.
>>>>>>>> and it does not stop  any current developer from learning
and offering
>>>>>>>> these.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 2010, at 10:11 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Contributors+Branch+proposal
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> David E Jones sent the following on 7/15/2010 9:03
AM:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hans,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> How would you create such a branch, or what would
that look like? Who
>>>>>>>>>>> would be able to commit to it?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 2010, at 2:59 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>  Shouldn't we do a proof of concept?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I will volunteer to create and update a new
branch for BJ to start and
>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone who would like to contribute. When
the people on this branch
>>>>>>>>>>>> say they are ready we can judge what is there
and/or provide
>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions
>>>>>>>>>>>> for enhancement.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> After general consensus the branch will be
merged into the trunk.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Any comments?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 18:21 -0700, BJ Freeman
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Contributors+Branch+proposal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BJ Freeman sent the following on 7/9/2010
11:07 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am writing a proposal for Contributors
branch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of the points are:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1)components not continued to be
supported in the specialpurpose get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move to the contributors branch till
interest is renewed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this would simplify maintaining the
trunk but allow people to pull it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down if they want to work on it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2)there is no guarantee of the ofbiz
community support of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3)people can test the contribution
and may vote to include it in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trunk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4)it gives one place to make sure
all contributions are integrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the latest trunk and each other without
effecting the trunk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it puzzles me that it is ok open
a branch to collorate, but when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opportunity to have a lot of contributions
avalible that would spread
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz acceptance you bulk. under
you logic that it can be done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why not do the same for Hippo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be interested in your reasons
why besides it can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott Gray sent the following on
7/9/2010 10:27 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What need would contributor branches
meet that can't already be met
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the likes of sourceforge,
google code or github?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding your other statements,
at some point Hans you are going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to ask yourself why it is
mostly only your commits that cause
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much negative discussion. Everyone
else seems to work together just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fine for the most part. I'm not
saying it's all your fault but you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't just blame everyone else
for these problems and ignore your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at 2:54 PM, Hans
Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  I have the same opinion as you
BJ, even as a committer it is too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem contributing because
of the number of technical people in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMC which often only judge
on technical qualities and making the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technically as difficult
as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The current discussion (not
really sure if it is one) between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adrian and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me is a good example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be a good
idea to have contributor branches. Other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members who would support
this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be honest i think that
you should try to become a committer, i
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why you did not accept in
the past, but please reconsider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 18:33
-0700, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my goal has always been
to have this ofbiz do this. it has never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intent to have a seperate
ofbiz. Nor am I promoting mine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my problem up to now
has been acceptance and resources.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see the winds changing
on acceptance and I have gotten the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you note I suggest
years ago to have contributor branches.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Had that happened I would
have contributed to it instead of create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see the equivalent
of contributor branch happening more like the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current Hippo branch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so if someone wants to
open a branch I can just submit to, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster, however i am
happy to provide Jiras.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so if the Jiras I put
patches in are accepted then the ofbiz will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same as the one I
have.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note my first major move
to accomplish this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3852
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott Gray sent the following
on 7/9/2010 5:18 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2010, at
1:06 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  a product is more
of a marketing item
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a part is a description
of a function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they vary for
engineering and manufacturing. Engineering does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assign a commercial
product to the part where manufacture may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many actual purchase
parts that will never be sold individually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see in the
model book the one I implemented is the alternative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and more extensive
model.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations,
where can I download a copy of this BJBiz?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try and keep in mind
that we are discussing OFBiz in this mailing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list, not your derivative
of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott Gray sent
the following on 7/5/2010 5:53 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In OFBiz
a Part is a Product, so what is your point?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HotWax Media
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/07/2010,
at 12:16 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  I wish to
be able to have our engineers link plans to parts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =========================
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BJ Freeman<http://bjfreeman.elance.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW your
quoting is terrible, I never made the statement below
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
Gray sent the following on 7/5/2010 5:02 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
wish to be able to have our engineers link plans to parts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality
services for competitive rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>>>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive
rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message