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 Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:11:53 GMT
  from a users perspective it would not be any different.

However from a developers perspective, if the manufacturing is of no 
use, like in a retail outlet, then it should be able to be  deactivated 
with no ill effect to the base applications.

Matt Warnock sent the following on 7/20/2010 2:47 PM:
> +1.
> Our company sits right at the intersection of two industries,
> distribution and manufacturing.  We outsource our manufacturing, but we
> still have to manage it quite a bit, and ordering more product requires
> printing approved labels, etc.  So in some ways we look more like a
> distributor/warehouse with a very small number of SKUs, and in others
> more like a rather simple manufacturing operation.
> Silverston does a great job of laying out what both the manufacturing
> and distribution business models should include.  But I don't need to
> use most of either one.  At some point (far in the future) we may use
> more of the manufacturing.  But having the shared data in the entities
> means I don't need to worry about whether the distribution set will talk
> properly to the manufacturing set, and whether the database structure
> that I use now will integrate properly later on as our needs may change.
> I probably would not use most of the features of either a distribution
> or manufacturing special-purpose app in its entirety, but seamless
> integration of both is critical to me.  That's why David's model of
> keeping the data structure entities in the core is important, IMHO.
> I don't (and probably never will) use time billing, job costing, or POS
> features at all, but it certainly doesn't bother me that the data
> structures are defined in the core for those whose models will include
> those common functions.
> Just my 2 cents.

View raw message