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 23:03:54 GMT
Yes, that sounds even better, still a lot of work though....


From: "David E Jones" <dejc@me.com>
> 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