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: What happeded to the real flatgrey theme?
Date Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:56:54 GMT
just so we are on the same page is this what you call ESB?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_service_bus
I note this is similar to the Windows Operating systemm.
Since ofbiz is already pushing memory limits not sure it could handle 
such a system and keep speed.

=========================
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation  <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
Specialtymarket.com  <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man


Brian Topping sent the following on 1/20/2011 11:53 PM:
>
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:59 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>
>> Do you really think that is the best idea? Isn't one of the problems with OFBiz that
everything is in one big pot, but not all users want the same thing, and so there are constant
fights about what should go into the single pot?
>>
>> Maybe it would be better if there were a stable framework and a bunch of separate
"pots" sitting on top of it that address different audiences and are driven by different groups
with different needs/wants? That would apply to different themes, different UIs, different
business domains, etc.
>
> This would have convinced me to go deeper with OFBiz had it existed.
>
> Personally, I think the right way to connect all the pots is with an ESB.  I really like
what OFBiz can offer my project as far as existing workflow and domain models, and lose interest
when I am required to use a tightly-coupled UI with it.
>
> I swear by Wicket, but some others are going to swear by Vaadin or GWT and I would choke
and turn blue before using them.  We haven't even started considering some of the cool stuff
available with Grails or what kind of UI could be autogenerated from messages.  And whether
I would adopt any of these UIs if they were accessible as a Maven artifact from a Nexus repository
(i.e. if I can deploy it to the JVM and don't have to maintain it, why do I care?)
>
> There's no accounting for taste, but the switchboard has to be opened up so people can
integrate.  That's what an ESB is all about.
>
> When the "pots" are distributed over an ESB, I don't care whether they are running OSGi
or running on a hamster wheel, and if one of them is causing me problems, I can deal with
them as needed, without having an all-or-nothing decision to make.
>
> When my switchboard can connect seamlessly to something like SAP, I can convince stakeholders
that they are future-proofed to some greater degree.  Every company that buys into the architecture
expands the entire ecosystem in the process, everyone wins.
>
> Certainly, when it gets to the domain level, it would be helpful to continue with what
makes OFBiz great, but XML schema with element overrides makes a for a far better and more
portable representation than anything we could cook ourselves.  OMG standards for metadata,
such as CWM [1] are conceptually far more powerful than anything we could dream up on our
own and have existing tool support, which is better than starting from zero.  Even if we just
modeled our own after CWM concepts, we'd be further ahead of the current unique method, however
open.
>
> If we end up with Maven artifacts that form APIs to deal with the domain through such
means, people can mix and match artifacts for custom solutions.  As well, other projects will
start reusing OFBiz subprojects, further increasing the connectedness and vitality of the
ecosystem.
>
> I'm interested in how / where I am missing the boat on this, but I feel like this old
architecture is holding everyone back.  At some point, the pressure on it will be too great
to resist even the combined inertia of the available OFBiz solutions, it's just a matter of
when.
>
> Brian
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Warehouse_Metamodel
>


Mime
View raw message