ofbiz-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jacques Le Roux" <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
Subject Re: Compoinent locatinos was Contributor branch Proposal,
Date Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:29:45 GMT
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