Jonathon I still maintain that there is no such thing as too much documentation (unless it's bad). I have hundreds of books that refer to regularly so I don't have to remember details I us only infrequently.
I initially was going to put a screen designer with me on the current project to write the widget and ftl code because I don't have the imagination to be able to know a good UI screen before I see it working and others with us do. Sadly, that did not work because I spent so much time hunting down answers to questions like "what does this field do?" that I couldn't get any work done. Such a shame too because these excellent UI designers are typically poor programmers. Skip -----Original Message----- From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 3:40 AM To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r597479 - /ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml Skip, Well, not yet. About 10 months ago, I proudly voiced an ambition to create enough documentation to rapidly train a whole bunch of OFBiz-capable developers or engineers. I'm not there yet. Frankly, I don't know if publishing a comprehensive "Guide to OFBiz" will help or hurt the project. Actually, I think I don't know much at all. We'll see next year if I'm a boon or a bane. Oh well. Here, please pardon my terminology again, I don't know how else to say this. (This has irritated David before). There are 2 parts to OFBiz. The framework, and the ERP aspects. The framework is huge, but is really tiny compared to the ERP aspects in OFBiz that works OOTB. It should be possible to have an army of developers who only know the framework aspects of OFBiz, assign a single OFBiz expert (who knows *all* of OFBiz), and produce great software. Not yet. Not yet... Jonathon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > David > > On this knowledge/experience point, I was talking about teams of people. > You have one (or more) team leader with a full grasp of the concepts and > others who write code under their direction. I do not think a single person > could attempt Ofbiz without a full understanding of the issues. In this > team environment, the majority of the contributors only need knowledge of > their specific area. > > I would bet a dollar to a donut that this team implementation is happening > now in many instances with some of the members not having a full grasp of > the business or database aspects. > > Skip > > -----Original Message----- > From: David E Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 11:47 PM > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org > Subject: Re: svn commit: r597479 - > /ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml > > > > I hope I don't burst any bubbles... but this specific paragraph has a > couple of real doosies (IMO of course): > > > On Nov 22, 2007, at 10:23 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> I was also trying to point out that "obvious" is always relative to >> experience and education. > > To some extend, yes, but I think you gave examples of where this is > not the case. The real point of this was the informational content, ie > the lack of redundancy and other information theory 101 types of > things (well, that certainly wasn't a 101 class when I took it, but > this part of it is a basic concept). > >> I promise you that over the life of Ofbiz >> (assuming that it becomes as successful as I think it will), the >> majority of >> those who write code for it will have zero business experience and >> little to >> no database experience. > > This may very well be the case, of course all such people are welcome > in the OFBiz world. However (and this might be the big bubble bursting > part...), if such people think they can contribute over a reasonable > scope and period of time they will HAVE to learn about such things. > These are things that are not made up in OFBiz, but rather things in > the world that OFBiz uses (ie OFBiz is a consumer or carrier of the > concepts not the producer). > > I'm guessing you get this and the above was just a partial thought... > if so forgive me for taking your thought and walking with it for a bit. > > -David > > >
