ofbiz-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From BJ Freeman <bjf...@free-man.net>
Subject Re: Contributor branch Proposal, was: Contributor branches https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Contributors+Branch+proposal was: Attaching files to a product
Date Fri, 16 Jul 2010 18:07:02 GMT
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
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> opportunity to have a lot of contributions avalible that
would spread
>>>>>>>> Ofbiz acceptance you bulk. under you logic that it can be
>>>>>>>> elsewhere
>>>>>>>> why not do the same for Hippo.
>>>>>>>> I would be interested in your reasons why besides it can
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>> my problem up to now has been acceptance and
>>>>>>>>>>> I see the winds changing on acceptance and I
have gotten the
>>>>>>>>>>> resources.
>>>>>>>>>>> if you note I suggest years ago to have contributor
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   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
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>>>>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>>>>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

View raw message