+1 Taher for checking the dependencies of OFBiz users on tenant feature. As both the options create multiple numbers of databases. Before deprecating/removing multi-tenancy, we should check all the pros and cons of the Multi-instance option as an alternate in OFBiz. We will not want to add another feature with similar or other limitations. At a time any one of the features should exist in OFBiz instead of adding backward compatibility. This may make the code more complex.
IMO, existing tenant issues are not critical or blocker. Kind Regards, Arun Patidar Director of Information Systems *HotWax CommerceReal OmniChannel. Real Results.* m: +91 9827353082 w: www.hotwax.c <http://www.hotwax.co/>o <anita.sach...@hotwax.co> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/hotwaxcommerce/> <https://www.facebook.com/HotWaxCommerce/> <https://twitter.com/hotwaxcommerce> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 4:06 PM Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > Yes you are right, I'll start a discussion on user ML. > > I already know that Pierre Smits uses it for his own projects, and indeed > we know there are more people using it. > > This said it should not prevent us to deprecate it and users to continue > to use it based on R17 branch. > > They could then switch later to the replacing feature. If we do so, we > should try to deliver a migration tool, maybe with their interested help... > > At the end it's the dev community to decide, we can get blocked by our > users, notably because there are issues pending for too long, w/o much > interest. > > Let's see on user ML > > Jacques > > > Le 29/08/2018 à 12:05, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit : > > Multi-tenancy complicates things, and the code could be made simpler > > by removing it in many areas of the system. So technically, I'm for > > that. > > > > However, the issue here is whether enough people depend on it. I saw > > multiple questions in the mailing list in the past about multi-tenancy > > in the past, so I'm just not sure if people depend on it or not. Maybe > > shooting that question in the user ML would help shed some perspective > > on it? > > > > With our appreciation for all the good work people are doing in their > > projects, I think we should be focused on OFBiz and what is best for > > _this_ project. If some project decides to drop multi-tenancy I don't > > think we should be influenced or automatically follow suit. So naming > > who-did-what might not important for this discussion and we need to > > bake our own bread. > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:45 PM Jacques Le Roux > > <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> The multi-tenants feature in OFBiz only allows a dozens or maybe even > few hundreds tenants, after it begin to be a lot of DBs! > >> I faced that with a startup which wanted to handle thousands, if not > millions (actually they failed), of tenants, obviously OFBiz can't do that. > >> > >> I don't break any secret to say that I was working with David (and > Andrew) on a project in 2010 when David had to quickly answer to the > client's > >> demand who wanted to have tenants. David brilliantly and quickly > delivered, but it was only a start. > >> > >> After many improvements, this feature still have some issues > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6066 > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7900 > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6164 > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6065 > >> > >> Also this is somehow related > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6712 > >> > >> And most importantly > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7112 > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7754 > >> > >> I recently read this article > >> > >> > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/architecture-constraints-end-multi-tenancy-gregor-hohpe/ > >> > >> and, after my experiences with multi-tenant as is in OFBiz, it made me > wonder if we should not think about how it's done now in OFBiz in 2018 with > the > >> clouds being everywhere! > >> > >> Before sending this email, I quickly exchanged with David about how > Moqui handles that now. And we are on the same page, see > >> > >> https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4640689/4640689-6180851287941201924 > >> > >> > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41952818/does-moqui-framework-2-0-still-support-mutli-tenency?rq=1 > [1] > >> > >> [1] Initially David gave me this link > >> > >> > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/multi-instance-moqui-docker-david-e-jones/ > >> > >> but it seems LinkedIn has lost it, as said in the stackoverflow comment. > >> > >> So IMO why not deprecating the multi-tenants as is now and rather push > a multi-instances way? > >> > >> Opinions? > >> > >> Jacques > >> > >
