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: Compoinent locatinos was Contributor branch Proposal,
Date Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:58:31 GMT
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 

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
>>>>> 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
>>>>>> (like we have now with many of OFBiz components) and will not help
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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

View raw message