ofbiz-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From BJ Freeman <bjf...@free-man.net>
Subject Compoinent locatinos was Contributor branch Proposal,
Date Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:20:07 GMT
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